Hello all on Shalom Place --

What Biblical basis is there for Sunday Observance, besides a group of people collecting and sending food to the starving Saints in Jerusalem "on the first day of the week" ?

1 Corinthians 16: 1-2 / Romans 15: 25-28


OR -----------

the women visiting a tomb "on the first day of the week"


OR ------------

A Saturday evening gathering together for a fellowship meal, where Paul spoke to the people, and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day, Sunday ? (Acts 20:7)

If every time a body of believers meet on a day and a preacher preaches a sermon, and that makes the day holy, there would be numerous Sabbath/holy days.

Some churches hold Sunday evening meetings and meetings on Wednesday evenings. But neither of these is sacred beyond the act of worship itself.

Didn't we have this discussion before on biblical feast days?

Sunday is the day the Lord rose from the dead. Tradition has it that we have been gathering on this "Christian Sabbath" since the first century of Christianity. Also, traditionally, it was more than a matter of a "fellowship meal" and "a preacher preaching a sermon." They met for the "breaking of the bread," i.e., the Eucharist, same as we do in many Churches now.

Wopik:

If you're confident, or relatively comfortable, with how you worship, why do you keep bringing up this question? Please answer that question.

Hello Phil and w.c.

I am just curious about Sunday observance, that's all. There doesn't seem to be any biblical basis for it. Surely, if we are keeping Sunday, the traditiona must have started with Jesus and the Apostles.

quote:

They met for the "breaking of the bread," i.e., the Eucharist, same as we do in many Churches now.

"Breaking bread" is just eating a meal (Lk 24:30; Jn 21:12-13). The Disciples �continuing DAILY with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness�.

Here �breaking bread� means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week, but DAILY.

Jesus said He wasn't going to take the symbols of the Eucharist "until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" - Matt 26:29.

So Jesus "breaking bread" is just eating a meal (Lk 24:30; Jn 21:12-13).


Today�s English Version, correctly translated from the inspired Greek text, says: �On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal. Paul spoke to the people, and kept on speaking until midnight, since he was going to leave the next day.�

Wopik:

This has already been answered some time ago. Phil went round the mulberry bush with you on such things months backs. It is my impression you come here to preach, to try and convert people to your notions, or perhaps you're insecure about what you believe, but you seldom seem really open to other's responses. And while matters of importance are relative to everyone, the issues you focus on often seem trivial and of little interest to other posters. Obviously such concerns aren't trivial to you, but why are you posting at Shalom, where most folks are Catholic, or far more pluralistic than you seem to be?

This is none of my business, but since I feel you are awfully preachy, and not actively open to exchange with others, it really does get redundant and irritating. Why not find a Forum where the assumptions are closer to your faith precepts? Everyone is welcome at Shalom, but honestly, your interactions seem mostly a thinly veiled attempt at evangelism, which isn't welcome.

With all due respect, wopik, I do know what "breaking of the bread" means in the New Testament. In some communities, there was an "agape meal," but even in such cases, there was a time for solemn remembering the death of the Lord, eating and drinking "in remembrance of him," etc. Perhaps you should add 1 Cor. 11: 17-34 to your collection of proof-texts; it would be far more balanced.

Your approach has me wondering how, if people thought as you do, the early Christians could have possibly functioned without a New Testament. Yet it is certain that they had no such book. So without a book, what were they to do? Continue to live out the Jewish Law? Well, some said as much, even advocating circumcision, etc. as a pre-requisite for entering the Church. But you do accept the discernments of the Council of Jerusalem on this, don't you? It's right there in Acts -- also a book they didn't have, at the time, as they were living its unfolding.

So what did they use in the early Church to find their way?

Answer: the guidance of the Spirit, the theological implications of their faith, and the discernments of the Apostolic leadership. They had an ear open to the Hebrew Scriptures as well, and, for the most part, saw no conflict between them and the direction taken by the Christian community. And so it was that the Christian Church began to chart its own direction, and continues to do so today using the same approach

- - -

Echoing some of what w.c. has shared as feedback above, I wonder where you're coming from with thread topics like this one -- especially since we discussed this issue already. I asked you once if you were a Jehova's Witness and I don't think you replied. No problem if you are . . . it would explain a lot, however.

Hello Phil and w.c.

I do know that verse (1 Cor. 11: 17-34) also. That is why Christians in certain traditions commemorate the death of Jesus on the very night He was betrayed - Nisan 14 / Abib 14.

Jesus put His eternal prescence in this day, by sacrificing Himself for us.

quote:

Your approach has me wondering how, if people thought as you do, the early Christians could have possibly functioned without a New Testament.

Phil,

The did function without a NT, as we know. The NT Church had their holy scriptures --

Peter said if the converted Gentiles wanted to learn more, that "Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day" (Acts 15:19-21).


Paul told Timothy that the holy scriptures he [Timothy] learned as a child were able to make him "wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 3:15).

The only "holy scriptures" Timothy would have know from a child were the OT Scriptures.

----------------------

Paul said to the NT Church that the law of Moses was written "For our sakes" - 1 Cor. 9:8-10.

Can one imagine, today, preachers in the pulpit appealing to the Law of Moses for sound doctrine - as Paul did ?

wopik, I'm wondering why you ignored my comments about the Council of Jerusalem, and why you don't just come right out and admit that you're a Jehova's Witness. Fine with me, really. It would actually explain a lot. If you're not one, then you're a very confused Christian!

the Council of Jerusalem did not outlaw circumcision; they came to the sound conclusion that it was not a prerequisite FOR SALVATION.

quote:

So without a book, what were they to do? Continue to live out the Jewish Law?

Paul said to the NT Church that the law of Moses was written "For our sakes" - 1 Cor. 9:8-10.


Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic!

Actually, the Council of Jerusalem said nothing about circumcision and salvation. They were addressing the issue of membership in the Church. As you know, circumcision was REQUIRED for male Jews, who were the community in covenant with God. That is indisputable, as is the fact that the Church leaders said it is not required for membership in the Christian community.

THEY REVISED THE MOSAIC LAW IN THE LIGHT OF CHRISTIAN REVELATION!!

So . . . Jehova's Witness? Yes or no! I'm not ashamed to tell you that I'm a Catholic.

quote:

So . . . Jehova's Witness?

seventh-day Church of God. We also keep the holidays of the Bible.

Acts 20: 7, 8

This text simply says, �Upon the first day of the week, the disciples came together to break bread�.Paul preached�.� There is here no mention of the sacredness of this day or of the �Lord�s Day�. Nor is the meeting itself referred to as anything other than a Church meeting. If every time a body of believers meet on a day and a preacher preaches a sermon, that makes the day holy, there would be numerous Sabbath/holy days.


"Breaking bread" is just eating a meal (Lk 24:30; Jn 21:12-13). The Disciples �continuing DAILY with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness�.

Here �breaking bread� means eating a meal. Not on the first day of the week, but DAILY.

quote:

the Council of Jerusalem said nothing about circumcision and salvation.

"And certain men which came down from Judea TAUGHT the brethern, and said, 'Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, YOU CAN NOT BE SAVED'.

"When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them, should go up to JERUSALEM unto the apostles and elders about this question" -- Acts 15: 1-2

wopik, for heaven's sake, surely -- surely! -- you must know that for many Jews of that time, questions about salvation were inextricably connected to covenant? Same for the early Christians. So the question of circumcision re. covenant had implications for salvation.

Think about what you're saying, here. You're acknowledging that for the Jews, salvation, circumcision and covenant were connected. True. And my point is that the leaders of the early Church decided they were not bound by that rule any more, as the Spirit had made it clear that the Gentiles were acceptable without circumcision.

THEY DECIDED THEY DID NOT HAVE TO LIVE UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW. It's right there in Acts plain as day for those who have eyes to see.

I'm done with this one.

------

Seventh Day Church of God

According to their homepage, the COG (Seventh Day) believes that the Bible is the literal and final word. The followers believe that they are sinners by birth and choice and also need to reach salvation by forgiveness for their sins. 14 There are many other doctrinal beliefs that the COG recognizes. Along with the seventh day Sabbath, they observe the Law of Moses and believe it should be observed by all Christians. 15 The COG believes in the practices of baptism by immersion, foot washing, and observing the Lord's supper on the fourteenth day of the Hebrew month of Adib. . .

OK, so we know where you're coming from now, including that you are here to evangelize us. If you were also open to really dialoguing with us, that would be fine with me. But, alas, dear wopik, you're not interested in dialogue or discussion, and show no aptitude for it.

Phil,

we are discussing and giving our own opinions. I appreciate your opinions.

Paul said to the NT Church that the law of Moses was written "For our sakes" - 1 Cor. 9: 8-10.

If we were to abondon the Mosaic laws, then the Ten Commandments would be thrown out, too.

Glad to know you're not trying to evangelize, wopik.

I don't think your conclusion about the Ten Commandments follows. Why this all-or-nothing theology? That's where you're stuck, quite frankly. To you, it's inconceivable that one could be absolved from one of the 600 + laws binding on Jews of Jesus' time without abdicating the entire Law. But that's exactly what happened, with respect to circumcision, fasting laws, and a great deal more. Some that were consistent with the revelation brought by Christ were retained, providing a continuity with Jewish tradition. Others were disregarded as no longer being necessary. Obviously, the Ten Commandments were retained, as they very much support the emphasis on love and moral living taught by Christ.

I understand how that can all be confusing--especially if one rejects apostolic authority as qualified by Christ and the Spirit to make such changes. That's what, in fact, happened in early Christian history, however. Insisting now that Christians ought to keep the entirety of the Mosaic Law or else why bother with the Ten Commandments isn't really an issue in the Church. It's saddening to see the lack of freedom that you demonstrate in this regard, although I respect your intent to be dedicated to what you perceive to be God's will. Your understanding on all this is highly revisionist, however, pulling out selected texts while disregarding entire chapters of Scripture and the practice of the Church itself.

quote:

Glad to know you're not trying to evangelize, wopik.

Is that a Joan Rivers' wink wink ??

It's an "I-don't-quite-believe-you" wink.

But that's OK. It helps to know where you're coming from now, and why you find it important to raise these issues. I respect your commitment to stand up for your beliefs and even the attempt to try to advance them. People who aren't willing to do that at times don't really seem to have much conviction about their beliefs.

So feel free to use this message board to raise questions, open discussions, etc. That's fine, and I don't mind that at all. In fact, I wish we had more women, political liberals and people of other religious faiths active, here, but am also grateful for the people who do frequent the forums. It is what it is. My frustration with you, as noted above, concerns the dialogue/discussion process. You raise questions and issues, but don't properly consider the responses and rebuttals given in your rejoinders. It seems, rather, to be a kind of "gotcha" game you're playing. I (or others) take the time to respond, you ignore the point we make, and quote another Scripture in the spirit of "gotcha." That's just not how we use Scripture in Catholicism.

So carry on, if you wish. But if you really want to dialogue about the issue of whether Christians ought to be keeping the Mosaic Law (the thread that runs through all your interactions, here), you need to carefully consider what I pointed out above about the Council of Jerusalem. This, to me, was the most important of all ecumenical councils, for what they were essentially saying is that Christians are NOT bound by the Mosaic Law--you didn't have to become a Jew to be a Christian. It was the Council of Jerusalem that formally acknowledged the universality of the Gospel, and affirmed faith and Baptism as the terms for the new covenant, rather than keeping the Mosaic Law, which was the term of the old. You don't have to go digging around in Vatican archives to learn about this Council, as it's right there in the Acts of the Apostles.

Therefore, it would seem to me that insisting on a literal interpretation of Scripture would include acknowledging the decisions made at the Council of Jerusalem. If you do so, however, I don't see how you can possibly also insist that all Christians ought to follow the Mosaic Law. There's inconsistency in your positions, here.

Yes, Phil. I do like to discuss my beliefs, and contrast and compare them with what others do.

I'm just in the process of reading this great article on the Sabbath. I'll pass it along, in case you or w.c. or anyone else might care to glance over it. Maybe we could discuss some points, later.

In the 'NT Church' section, the author spends a paragraph or two discussing the Council of Jerusalem.

http://intercontinentalcog.org...C/Lesson_Seven.shtml

wopik, I glanced over the article, especially the section on the Council of Jerusalem. While it's true that the immediate issue was whether Gentiles should be circumcised, it doesn't follow that this was a narrow concern. Circumcision was an issue because the real question was whether the Gentiles should be required to follow the Law of Moses, as, apparently, the Hebrew Christians were still doing.

Earlier you cited Acts 15: 1-2, to indicate a narrow concern of circumcision and salvation. Keep on going down to 15: 5-6 and you'll discover the larger question:
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to see about this matter.

What "matter" were they "seeing about"?

Not simply circumcision and salvation, but the whole question of the duties of Christians re. Mosaic Law. Acts goes on to make it clear that keeping the Mosaic Law was no longer required and we see here the precedent that begins the tradition contiued today in Catholicism -- namely, the role of authoritative leadership to interpret the meaning of Scripture and Tradition for the good of the Church.

Now, wopik, if you can read Acts 15 and still conclude that Christians are required to keep the Law of Moses, then there is really nothing I can tell you, for you are not really interpreting Scripture literally, as your own tradition teaches. You can pull another "gotcha" verse from Paul or someone else, if you'd like, but you doing so while ignoring the rulings of the Council of Jerusalem would be a blatant misuse of Scripture. I could "gotcha" back all day and all night using quotes from Paul and others. Yes, some of us Catholics do know our Bible! That's not really discussion or dialogue, however.

Hi all....

There is one thing you are missing in your discussion of why Sunday. The first Christians were Jews... Christ was a Jew and the early Christians believed him to be the Jewish Messiah. For quite awhile, the first "Christians" continued to worship in the temple and to celebrate the Sabbath according to Jewish custon on Saturday and were in fact most likely to be seen as yet another sect within the Jewish religion..not something separate from it. They gathered together to celebrate the resurrection of Christ on Sunday. It wasn't until after they split from the Jewish communities that they kept Sunday as their Sabbath for the very reasons that Phil mentions. The fact that they were Jews and saw themselves as Jews gave rise to the question of circumcism for the Gentiles who were joining. Was it necessary...did that law apply to both Gentile and Jew or only Jews?
As for having Scripture...the very early churches did not.. at least not as we know it. Good heavens there wasn't even a "church" as we know it today... and reading Paul's letters you can see how difficult the struggle was to form and define the "church"....in fact, you could say that it is a struggle that goes through the Council of Nicea, the Reformation, and is still going on today....hence these wonderful discussions....grin.
Now, I'm back to the books...
Peace,
Wanda

As you probably know, in the fourteenth chapter of Romans, Paul makes recommendations on issues of diet and observance of holy days, and how to regard those who may feel differently.

Thou shalt not sweateth the small stuff.

caritas,

mm <*))))))><

Hi all --

quote:

Yes, some of us Catholics do know our Bible!

I do not deny that.

The OT is able to make us wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Tim 3: 14-15).

The Pope Says Don't Do THIS on Sundays ---

No more watching movies or football games on Sundays. Pope John Paul II has decreed that Roman Catholics should reserve Sunday as a day for God only and not for secular diversions, such as entertainment and sports, reports Reuters.

"When Sunday loses its fundamental meaning and becomes subordinate to a secular concept of 'weekend' dominated by such things as entertainment and sport, people stay locked within a horizon so narrow that they can no longer see the heavens," the pontiff said in a speech to 35 Australian bishops, who recently made a pilgrimage to the Vatican. The pope blasted what he called "the pernicious ideology of secularism."

Condemning the "culture of the here and now," the Holy Father encouraged the leaders of the church to "lead men and women from the shadows of moral confusion and ambiguous thinking." Noting the secular culture is undermining family life, the pope encouraged Catholics to remain faithful to the Sunday Mass.

Sunday is for God.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/ne...ports/nosundaysports