The Pope Says Don't Do THIS on Sundays

I guess I'm a sinner! Hell for me for going to church on Sunday. If the Sabbath was so needed in the salvation message, then why did Christ die? (Rhetorical question) It's not I who is preaching two gospels. I now see you are saying salvation by grace, as long as you go to church on Saturday. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, you know full well it's not true that I say that. But I'll tell you, a Sabbath Day - "Saturday" or Sunday - without Jesus Christ is sin and an offense in the face of God. At least Sunday-keepers believe they keep the Sunday because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday - in which assumption they are wrong. But nevertheless their motive is Christian. The Saturday-keepers of whom I mostly know don't have Jesus Christ - in no way whatsoever - as their motive for keeping Saturday. The moment they start asserting why and how they keep Saturday for Jesus' sake, they start talking selfrighteousness and a salvation by works. Then I would prefer the Church keeping Sunday - if it was for me to make a choice. But I have no choice in the matter - the Scriptures - the Law - only!

 

I quote Acts 17-11, QB: If the Sabbath was an important part of Christian worship, then why was it not included in the Jerusalem Council when Paul wanted to know what it was the gentile believers were to observe. QE

Acts 17-11, how ignorant and blind can you be, because the very Scripture (Acts 15) tells you the Law (the Scriptures) was read every Sabbath Day in the Church - in the Christian Church! The Sabbath Day in the NT is 'Church-Day' and nothing else. The Body that is of Christ's Own (Col.2:17) tells you that. Never in the NT will you find the Church being Church (through "holy convocation' or "gathering together" for to worship) but on the Seventh Day Sabbath Day. The Sabbath is as part of Gospel Truth as the existence of True Believers is. God never in all history of True Believers' Existence has been worshipped but by means of the servant and instrument He provided - and no mere man - for that very purpose. It is what God's sanctification of the Seventh day of the week has always meant - to His own glory. Inm the NT it becomes to the His glory in the face of Jesus. I have it against the SDA's they would not accept this 'change' - a 'change' that only brings out the Sabbath' original and eternal purpose. I have it against the Sundat-keepers (my kin) that they would not admit Sunday never had anything like the Sabbath's divine purpose, but is our willfull religion, abominable to God.

 

In what time zone is that?

Keep working on it, bud.

 

Dear Alcot,
Do you believe in the Church of Christ?
Then how do you worship?
Do you think the Scriptures has any say in these questions?
Do you think Jesus' own doings have any meaning for these things?
Then HOW do you justify YOUR Sunday-worship?

 

I worship regularly; that's how.
Romans 14:5,6 and Colossians 2:16 'justifies' Sunday worship, Monday worship, Tuesday, worship....

 

Gerry,
Give me a break, The law was read on the sabbath day to Jews in the synagogues. The Paul and the like went into them to witness Christ. Not as ignorent as you want to believe but believe what you will.

Didn't Jesus say our Father works even until now when the Sabbath freaks of His day came at Him? In the end it's about the fulfillment of the law. It's called grace. If the church God clearly called me to worshiped on Sat. then I would go. If thurs. I would go. In the end I will go where I believe God called me to serve.


by His Grace Alone,
Michael
Friendship Baptist Church

 

non Christian posting under false pretense

[ January 08, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

Col.2:16, "Do not you let judge you anyone in celebration of Feast, or, with regard to Feast of month's, or, of Sabbaths' (occurence)." Where's "Sunday worship" in that? I see Sabbaths' worship of the Christian Church in it though.
Ro.14 - not worth quoting in this regard because it will be irrelevant. No "Sunday worship" in it also. I read their too that "he that observes the day, observes it to the Lord". It may include Sabbaths' worship but I don't think so. But this text does NOT say "he that does not observe the day, observes it not to the Lord" - it is Sunday-worshippers who INSERT that in God's Word - so they are LIARS just to "justify" "Sunday worship" through Sabbath-disobedience.

 

I quote DietofWorms,
QB: Never???? How about, Acts 20:7 where we read: 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.

Just a note about "when the disciples came together to break bread". This is written in the tense in the Greek (i'm sorry, I forget the name) that indicates this to be a practice rather than a singular event. This would therefore be an early example of liturgical practices in the Church not on the Sabbath but on the first day (which we now denote as Sunday). " QE

The Perfect Participle is used, and it literally and exactly means ONE thing: When the disciples on the First Day of the week WERE STILL TOGETHER AFTER THEY (EARLIER BEFORE) HAD COME TOGETHER, Paul addressed them ...".
I can bring you the witness of SUNDAY-keeping Christian scholars by the score to underwrite this translation. Crux of the matter is, the disciples DID NOT COME TOGETHER ON THE FIRST DAY at all, but logically on the day before, which had been the Sabbath Day! And they on the day before - on the Sabbath Day - came to gether for to keep Holy Communion.
To say "upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together" is a LIE, a wilful and conscious LIE, for the only reason to find one text of Scripture to 'prove' Sunday-worship!

 

[ January 08, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

I again quote Dietof Worms:
QB: We are a Church of the new Covenant and we celebrate the day it was given its authority over believers; which as Mark 16:2, Mark 16:9, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, John 20:19 is the first day (Sunday) of the week not the last one (Sabbath).QE

Mk.16:2 speaks of the three women's VISIT to the grave, Mk.16:9 speaks of Jesus' APPEARANCE "to Mary first". None speak of Jesus' resurrection. Mk.16:9 only tells HOW Jesus appeared: "As the Risen One"; it says not WHEN He rose from the dead. The time of Jesus' resurrection you will find in only one text, in Mt.28:1, and there it says, EXACTLY, "In the slow hours of the Sabbath being (day)light indeed before the First Day of the week".
Lk.24:1 speaks of the first visit of the women to the tomb.
Jn.20:1 and Mk.16:9 obviously mention the same event.
Jn.20:19 - This time the translators find it fitting to supply the concept of assembling where it does not even exist or is needed exept to suit Sunday sacredness.
It is a pity we as the Church of the New Covenant are building on deceit, despising the glory God Himself gave the Old Covenant. But I agree, that if it were impossible to believe and keep the Sabbath Day for Jesus' sake and glory, then rather no Sabbath Day. But God does not think so. He thinks, it seemes to me, disposed of the very best for His Church to worship Him, and therefore provided His Church His Holy Day the Seventh Day Sabbath - the Day He so honoured by calling Himself Lord of it! Now worship God, confess Him, proclaim His Grace, and glorify Him in the fcae of Jesus without this Day of His Provision and Providence? Impossible!

 

Thankyou for reminding me of the verb form but that is not the tense I'm looking for. And, your interpretation is not exact. It does mean a completed action, it doesn't however, force one to think that the disciples were sitting around for 24 hours. It simply means that the action of coming together was complete. They had come together on the first day for the breaking of the bread.

Bring 'em on. Show me a single scholar that would argue that this verse means that "when the disciples came together to break bread" actually means it was celebrated the day before.

Well considering that is a direct quote from the KJV are you calling the Word of God a lie? I'm no expert on the rules of this Board but I suspect that that is probably against them.

 

I answer Dietof Worms,
I really find it refreshing to find a Sundaydarian who respects the Scriptures! I don't doubt your honesty a second! Unfortunately one cannot trust 'Translations' because they are Sunday-prone.
I quote you, QB, Romans 14 ... does not negate the possibility of a prefered day of the week for communal, liturgical worship.QE
I would not even allow that much 'in favour of' the Sabbath Seventh Day, for I don't think it features at all. I think the Roman Congregation had some Believers who still thought it proper to celebrate the Passover during Passover-Season, which had its three 'First' or 'Head'-Days; the "three days" one finds frequent reference to in connection with Jesus sufering, death, burial and resurrection. But not even that was the big issue in the Congregation. Paul defines the REAL problem: a 'judging spirit' of haughtiness that made of food and drink the substance of God's Kingdom. Unthinkable? Not so considering the very same phenomonon featuring in the Church today!

 

To whomsoever it may concern: I quote: QB,Well considering that is a direct quote from the KJV are you calling the Word of God a lie? I'm no expert on the rules of this Board but I suspect that that is probably against them. QE.
If that is the easy way to stop hearing TRUTH, then throw me out. I wonder if the Church found itself in darker ages I could have boasted martyrdom! Even that I would find worthless for the excellency of Jesus Christ which I may make mine through faith and no more!
I am NOT 'calling the Word of God a lie'; I am calling the word of MEN a lie!

 

I am answering DietofWorms who wrote, QB: Thankyou for reminding me of the verb form but that is not the tense I'm looking for. And, your interpretation is not exact. It does mean a completed action, it doesn't however, force one to think that the disciples were sitting around for 24 hours. It simply means that the action of coming together was complete. They had come together on the first day for the breaking of the bread.QE

Here's a definition from the great Baptist scholars Dana and Mantey, of the Intensive Perfect "It is most in keeping with the basal significance of the tense to place emphasis upon the existing results, for it is distinctly the tense of the "finished product". Your negation in the affirmative would have been an equally apt description of the Perfect Tense of thie Participle. And if you doubt it is the Perfect, here's Wigram's identification of it: "sunehgmenohn - Genitive Plual Participle Perfect Passive"

 

DietofWorms'
Have you never had a full day's worship and then the evening following, maybe deep into night?
In any case, Paul had much "business to do" with the disciples re their itinerary. (Dutch State Bible). He did not "preach" - again the idea the 'translators' import for Sunday's sake.

 

Actually the KJV translates: "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week"

"In the end of the Sabbath" - another way of saying after Sabbath was completed (logically it would have had to been because the women were now working - a no-no on the Sabbath).

"dawn toward the first day" - considering that Jews measure their days from sunset to sunset this would make the time frame about half way through the first day of the week.

Therefore I still see no support for the resurrection happening on the Sabbath as there was plenty of time for the event to have happened on the third day but before the women got there. As you say this is the only text that refers to the time of the resurrection I fail to see your rational for insisting otherwise.

 

I never said I doubted it. What I said is that it simply indicates a completed action. This does not in anyway suggest that the action had to be completed the day before (or an hour before, or a year before) just that it was completed.

 

Certainly I have. I fail to see how the text supports an interpretation that that is what's happening here.