Ellen White & the Bible

[GHansen]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

Show me where in the New Testament that you're reading that Christians were celebrating the Eucharist on the Sabbath day. As I have already said, all the Ancient Churches be they Catholic or otherwise affirm that that term Breaking Bread referred to celebration of the Eucharist. This group would even include the Churches who only accept up to the 3rd Council of the Christian Church. 

The practice of starting observance of the Sabbath day on the evening of the 6th day is a Tadmudic Rabbinical invocation. Jewish Scholars admit this as do Christian Scholars. See Matthew 28, 1

"IN the end of the Sabbath, as it BEGAN to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene...."

If BEFORE dawn Sunday it was still part of the Sabbath there goes your "Jewish time" argument. 

The Jewish Religious Authority was well known for ADDING to the Commandments so as to add another layer of protection. In this case the addition was to build a buffer around the actual commandment. 

The Commandment said to honor the Sabbath "DAY" - According to Genesis 1, 5 God call the light DAY and the Dark NIGHT. 

Furthermore in Leviticus 23 when the Sacred Feasts (ceremonial times) of the Lord are described the Day of Atonement stands apart in that - THAT specific Feast Israel was on the 10th Day of the 7th month however the D.O.A. included special instructions that Israel was to start observing that 10th DAY on the evening of the 9th day. 

"Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath."

That Sabbath [ the D.O.A.] was to be observed from the evening of the 9th day through to the evening of 10th day. There is zero help here for those appealing to Talmudic Rabbinical 7th day Sabbath worship. 

Prior to discounting this read Exodus 23 paying close attention to verses 23 - 26 and ask yourself when did tomorrow become today apart from Talmudic Rabbinical Tradition? 

Work calls so I'll have to pick up on this discussion later.  

 

Gustave, The issue doesn't depend on me showing you a passage where communion was celebrated on the Sabbath. Your position, as I understand it, is that the eucharistic celebration on the first day evinces first day sacredness. None of the references to that celebration place it on the first day. Acts 20 describes a meal eaten on what would be Saturday evening to us today. There is no mention of the cup there. Whatever day it was is irrelevant since it was not a communion meal. As I said before, communion meals ALWAYS mention both the bread and the cup. My entire argument rests on that fact. Meals that were indisputably communion ALWAYS mention both the cup and the bread. The meal in Acts 20 does not. The disciples had come together for a meal on the first day which was  what we would call Saturday evening. He preached until midnight, then he had his meal.

You assert "   "As I have already said, all the Ancient Churches be they Catholic or otherwise affirm that that term Breaking Bread referred to celebration of the Eucharist."  Whether all the churches believed that, I can't say. If that's true, then it indicates that all the ancient churches were confused about what the Bible says. The meal in Emmaus twice mentions bread being broken. There is no mention of the cup and no reason to assume that it was a communion service. If it was Jesus stiffed them because he disappeared before the meal was eaten. Again, if you can't accept my argument, that the cup and the bread together indicate a communion service. then further discussion is pointless. Common meals mention bread being broken.  Mark 8 verses 6 & 19 mention bread being broken. Did all the ancient churches believe that was a communion meal?  Broken bread was eaten with fish. Sacred meals ALWAYS include the cup. The only way you can attach sacredness to the first day is by mistaking ordinary meals for communion, a mistake I'm not willing to indulge.

[Gustave]

Gustave, The issue doesn't depend on me showing you a passage where communion was celebrated on the Sabbath

Yeah, it does because THAT was the Worship. Early Christian Worship was similar to worship at the Temple under a priest but instead of a animal being killed as a Sacrifice Bread and Wine were offered. THAT was the worship and it took place EVERY week. SDA worship would have been alien to Christians living in the 1st 300 years after Christ. 

 

Your position, as I understand it, is that the eucharistic celebration on the first day evinces first day sacredness. None of the references to that celebration place it on the first day.

Acts 20 describes a meal eaten on what would be Saturday evening to us today. There is no mention of the cup there. Whatever day it was is irrelevant since it was not a communion meal. As I said before, communion meals ALWAYS mention both the bread and the cup. My entire argument rests on that fact.

The Old Testament nowhere commands people to observe the Sabbath day starting from the evening of the 6th day - the Tradition comes from the Jewish Religious Authority (Moses's Seat). The "Command" was "Binding" on Jews during Christ's life because as Jesus Himself stated, "The Scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses' seat therefore do whatsoever they command you to do....."

Take a minute and think this through. 

Jesus, in speaking of the Jewish Religious Authority said,  they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers....

Jesus' teaching here was for both His disciples and the crowds to do WHATSOEVER the Jewish Religious Authority bound on them BECAUSE the Pharisees were sitting on the seat of Moses. This meant that good Jews submitted to WHATSOEVER "binding law" was passed by the Religious Authority. The Scribes and Pharisees, according to Jesus, had binding & loosing power AND it was FROM GOD. What Jesus rebuked those who sat on Moses' seat for - was their refusal to use their "loosing power" to make peoples lives easier. Observing the Sabbath starting the day earlier is one example of Jewish Religious Tradition that was binding even though it's not in the Bible. 

After Jesus rose from the dead He used the exact same language He previously did when speaking of the Pharisees and, however, this time He says all power [Binding & Loosing] was giving to Him and He was giving this Binding & Loosing power to His Apostles (foundations of the Church).

Matthew 18, 18: Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This language is unmistakable the Jewish Religious Authority no longer had "Religious Authority" - it had been removed and issued by Christ to the Apostolic Church. 

You evidently needed this background before I addressed your "Sunday Sacredness" statement. 

Knowing that the Church founded by Christ HAD "Binding and Loosing" power one should consider the following Scripture.

Hebrews 10, 25:  Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)  And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:  Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.  For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Grammatically, the above Scripture identifies the  FAILURE of Christians to assemble themselves together AS SIN.

Christians did not assemble themselves together on the Sabbath day GHansen - Christians assembled themselves together on the 1st day of the week. 

Acts 20, 7: And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, 

In other words all week the disciples were running all over the place but on THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK THEY CAME TOGETHER TO BREAK BREAD [ celebrate the Eucharist ]. The communal meal WAS THE EUCHARIST. The text itself says that the 1st day of the week was when they assembled. 

What did the Apostles drag back with them?

Acts 2, 41: Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.  And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Think this through, the Apostles are running all over the place yet GATHERED [assembled] together on ONE DAY during the week. According to Scripture it WASN'T on a Gregorian Saturday - it was Sunday. 

All those Churches in Galatia that the Apostles got up and running had been commanded to bring their "COLLECTION" (gift of offering) with them ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK because THAT IS WHEN THEY ASSEMBLED TOGETHER AS CHRISTIANS. 

In case you are ignorant Jews at the time of Christ or even today wouldn't DARE walk around with money in their pocket on the Sabbath. Practicing Jews simply didn't and don't do that. We know that the Apostles were not gathering together with other Christians because Scripture tell us many times that they were attending the Temple or Synagogues on the Sabbath - they were assembling with JEWS in an attempt to share Jesus with them. If people accepted the Apostles teaching Acts 2, 41 tells us exactly what followed their conversion: 

"They continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship AND IN THE BREAKING OF BREAD."

When does the Bible say the Apostles gathered together to break bread? Sunday! 

 

Meals that were indisputably communion ALWAYS mention both the cup and the bread. The meal in Acts 20 does not. The disciples had come together for a meal on the first day which was  what we would call Saturday evening. He preached until midnight, then he had his meal.

Your point is irrelevant because the text says it was on Sundays that the Apostles gathered together and THAT was the day they had their communal meal (as you call it). If the converts were fellowshipping with the Apostles and breaking bread with them it was EVERY SUNDAY exactly as the text says. 

I suppose one could fantasize that the Apostles worshiped Christ as God at the Synagogue and Temple every Sabbath day but ORDERED that Christians must make their offering gifts every Sunday because THAT was the day all the assembled Christians would see Paul & the other Apostles because that just happened to be the day they gathered themselves together BBQ'd mutton and had a big communal meal - oh, AND took up the Collection???? Come on! 

 

You assert "   "As I have already said, all the Ancient Churches be they Catholic or otherwise affirm that that term Breaking Bread referred to celebration of the Eucharist."  Whether all the churches believed that, I can't say. If that's true, then it indicates that all the ancient churches were confused about what the Bible says. The meal in Emmaus twice mentions bread being broken. There is no mention of the cup and no reason to assume that it was a communion service.

There is ZERO argument against the early Christians (Apostolic era) celebrating the Eucharist every Sunday, even the secular history of the Romans attests to that during the time Christianity was considered a dangerous cult. 

If it was Jesus stiffed them because he disappeared before the meal was eaten. Again, if you can't accept my argument, that the cup and the bread together indicate a communion service. then further discussion is pointless. Common meals mention bread being broken.  Mark 8 verses 6 & 19 mention bread being broken. Did all the ancient churches believe that was a communion meal?  Broken bread was eaten with fish. Sacred meals ALWAYS include the cup. The only way you can attach sacredness to the first day is by mistaking ordinary meals for communion, a mistake I'm not willing to indulge.

I've already dispelled your argument with straight forward reasoning using ONLY the Bible. 

[Gustave]

I somehow misplaced some code in my post to GHansen - perhaps someone can fix it or open it up tomorrow so I can fix it. 

[GHansen]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

 

Gustave, It is you who are saying that communion on the first day evinces first day sacredness; consequently, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. So far you haven't. Unless you have a passage conveying that the cup and broken bread were served on the first day, you've failed. Really, the papal arguments say that  Jesus was born on Sunday, rose from the dead on Sunday, and  the Holy Spirit descended on Sunday; therefore Sunday is rightly adjudged as important as the Sabbath are simply human constructs. The papacy has been offering false constructs for centuries on what righteousness. This is just another audacious assertion without Biblical support. Even if you could show texts indicating that the communion was served on Sunday, that would not be sufficient to show that Sunday was blessed in the same sense that the Sabbath was. What the papacy offers is falsehood. Communion wasn't celebrated on the first day for starters. No bread and cup = common meal. Secondly, even if it could be shown that the bread and cup were served to believers on the first day, that does not indicate that Sunday now replaces the Sabbath. Unless you can show that the bread and cup were served on the first day and then show that as sanctifying Sunday in the same way the Sabbath was blessed as part of the creation narrative, further discussion on this point is fruitless.

[Gustave]

5 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, It is you who are saying that communion on the first day evinces first day sacredness; consequently, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. So far you haven't. Unless you have a passage conveying that the cup and broken bread were served on the first day, you've failed. Really, the papal arguments say that  Jesus was born on Sunday, rose from the dead on Sunday, and  the Holy Spirit descended on Sunday; therefore Sunday is rightly adjudged as important as the Sabbath are simply human constructs. The papacy has been offering false constructs for centuries on what righteousness. This is just another audacious assertion without Biblical support. Even if you could show texts indicating that the communion was served on Sunday, that would not be sufficient to show that Sunday was blessed in the same sense that the Sabbath was. What the papacy offers is falsehood. Communion wasn't celebrated on the first day for starters. No bread and cup = common meal. Secondly, even if it could be shown that the bread and cup were served to believers on the first day, that does not indicate that Sunday now replaces the Sabbath. Unless you can show that the bread and cup were served on the first day and then show that as sanctifying Sunday in the same way the Sabbath was blessed as part of the creation narrative, further discussion on this point is fruitless.

I have, easier and more naturally to the Bible than your 1844 stuff. 

I demonstrated that under the Old Covenant Moses held Religious Authority and that this authority had succession all the way through the history of Israel to the point of Jesus Himself confirming the Scribes and Pharisees validly possessed it. 

I next showed you [ in the Bible ] where this Authority had been removed from Judaism and given to the Apostolic Church by Jesus Himself using the same language any Jew would have unequivocally understood to mean exactly what I've said it does. 

I showed you in the Bible (Hebrews 10,25) where it said that Christians failing to assemble together IS A SIN.

I showed you in the Bible that Sunday was the day the Disciples gathered together to break bread - they were working spreading the Gospel primarily to their fellow Jews and once a week they assembled together as Christians - the Bible says the day of their assembly was Sunday. There is no way out of that. 

I showed you in the Bible were all the Christians in Galatia had been "commanded" to give their offerings . 

 

1 Corinthians 16: Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also. On the first day of the week  [that's Sunday] let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made. And when I shall be with you, whomsoever you shall approve by letters, them will I send to carry your grace to Jerusalem.

A Church is an assembly of Christians - Paul had commanded all the Churches of Galatia ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK that everyone have their money or gifts on their person so no one would have to leave the assembly to retrieve it. 

Like I said in my last post what day is it that all the towns SDA people see their Pastor or Church Leaders? It's the same day the SDA's assemble for what they call worship and drop money into a collection plate. What you are proposing is that all the Christians would have assembled at the Synagogue or Temple, had Sabbath service, Celebrated the Eucharist AND THEN THE NEXT DAY assembled as ONLY CHRISTIANS to wait for Paul to give him a collection of money and gifts. I'm sorry but this seems intellectually dishonest to me, 

As the Scripture clearly says if Jesus is not raised  we are all still in our sins and Christians are indeed the most wretched of all people. You can blame Jesus for making Sunday Special and you can blame the Apostles for starting the Tradition of holding Christian assembly and worship on that day. 

Your position is looking very weak here.

 

[Gustave]

 

 

Quote

The papacy has been offering false constructs for centuries on what righteousness. This is just another audacious assertion without Biblical support. Even if you could show texts indicating that the communion was served on Sunday, that would not be sufficient to show that Sunday was blessed in the same sense that the Sabbath was. What the papacy offers is falsehood.

 

Stop attempting to claim you agree with the Protestant Righteousness by Faith Doctrine - you don't agree with that any more than I do and pretty much every Protestant would agree with what I just said. 

In desperation you've glossed over Acts 20 so let's drill down into that a little better than you did. 

Verse 6 says Paul was in Troas for a week.

Verse 7 says out of those 7 days they "ASSEMBLED" together on Sunday TO BREAK BREAD. This always was the primary purpose for Christian assembly, everything that happens in the Church plays 2nd Chair to that one thing. 

Verse 9 says that Paul was long winded in his preaching. 

So, there was one day out of 7 that Scripture says Paul assembled with other Christians and it just happens to be on the 1st day of the week. 

Scripture says the reason for the assembly was , "And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight."

That is very clear in stating the reason they assembled was TO BREAK BREAD.

So, we have a "Christian assembly" for the purpose of breaking bread and Paul does a lot of preaching. 

SDA's  can claim this was just some friends getting together for a fish fry or maybe a leg of lamb (i.e. a common meal) but no one who aside from those who believe Adam, Eve, Abraham and Noah observed the 7th day Sabbath believe that - because its not reasonable to believe. 

[GHansen]

19 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

 

Gustave, I've presented to you my position. If you don't agree, that's fine with me. Really not interested in arguing for the sake of argument. You are introducing a number of irrelevant factors which I am not really interested in.  I had a friend who was a parish priest and I worked in a RC monastery on weekends for a year. Lot of good things in Roman Catholicism nowadays just as there is in Judaism, Adventism and other religions. I don't accept the teachings of the Papacy in a number of areas, including the Sabbath/Sunday issue. A relationship with Christ is not anymore about pointless arguing. I've got plenty of enemies already, don't need another.  Be well.

[Gustave]

10 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, I've presented to you my position. If you don't agree, that's fine with me. Really not interested in arguing for the sake of argument. You are introducing a number of irrelevant factors which I am not really interested in.  I had a friend who was a parish priest and I worked in a RC monastery on weekends for a year. Lot of good things in Roman Catholicism nowadays just as there is in Judaism, Adventism and other religions. I don't accept the teachings of the Papacy in a number of areas, including the Sabbath/Sunday issue. A relationship with Christ is not anymore about pointless arguing. I've got plenty of enemies already, don't need another.  Be well.

 

None of us needs enemies and I want to thank you for stepping up and presenting your beliefs in contrast to mine. Be well and the very best of wishes from my camp to yours! 

[GHansen]

6 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

None of us needs enemies and I want to thank you for stepping up and presenting your beliefs in contrast to mine. Be well and the very best of wishes from my camp to yours! 

Gustave, I'm sorry about my last post. I tried to delete it but was unable to. I won't respond to every point in every post you write but will attempt to do something, since you are willing to spend time writing them.

Your use of 1 Corinthians 16:2 puzzles me. There is no mention of any gathering there. Paul is telling the people to lay something aside on Sunday that the gift be ready when he arrives. Lamsa translates the passage like this: "On the first day of every week, let each of you put aside and keep in his house whatever he can afford, so that there may be no collections when I come." This reflects more clearly what the text says. There is no gathering demonstrating a religious assembly on the first day. This laying aside is something that occurs in the privacy of the believer's house.

Also, you seem to  assume that breaking bread always refers to communion. It doesn't. I guess that's why you make so much of Acts 20 but unless the cup is mentioned, it's just an ordinary meal. People gathering together for a meal on Saturday evening doesn't seem unusual. It's actually a common practice among some Sabbathkeepers even today. 

"SDA's  can claim this was just some friends getting together for a fish fry or maybe a leg of lamb (i.e. a common meal) but no one who aside from those who believe Adam, Eve, Abraham and Noah observed the 7th day Sabbath believe that - because its not reasonable to believe."  It is  entirely reasonable to understand Acts 20 as a fellowship meal since there is no mention of the cup, which is what distinguishes ordinary meals from communion. 

 

Wasn't the the first communion among Jesus and his disciples  on a Thursday evening. Both the cup and the bread are mentioned.  I'm unaware that anybody claims that Thursday night is now holy because of that.

[Gustave]

GHansen, no need for apology my new religious forum friend - seriously, no harm no foul. 

We wouldn't be worth our weight in salt if we didn't get at least a little dander up if after-all we REALLY believe what we say we do. 

My intention of using 1 Corinthians 16 was to show [again] that Christians were assembling on the first day of week. I take this text to establish that Christians were already (at this point) assembling themselves together on Sunday and Paul wanted them to have their gifts (gifts of offering) WITH THEM when they assembled. It's either this  OR

A) Paul would "come" to each individual believers house  to collect the gifts [ makes absolutely zero sense because who would keep their gifts of offering at someone else's house] Additionally if were as you said Paul would have put all the gathering on himself, which, according to the text, is the opposite of what he wanted. 

or

A.2) Paul expected the Christians to have already assembled with practicing Jews at the Temple or one of the many Sabbath Synagogues where they would have celebrated the Eucharist {blasphemy to devout Jews] and since Jews wouldn't give or collect money on the Sabbath Paul wanted Christians to assemble themselves together strictly for the purpose of making a collection for the Saints in Jerusalem. 

or

b) Christians were assembling "themselves" together in home Churches on the 1st day of every week where they would have bread and wine [Eucharist] & do those other things Pagan Roman spies reported they were doing (singing songs to Christ as a God, swearing to do no bad deeds and performing rituals over normal food and sharing it with those present). The Romans believed Christians were a Cannibal cult - thought they were actually eating people.

Paul knew Christians were assembling themselves together on the 1st day of the week and when he arrived he didn't want anyone running home to get their offering. 

C seems like the more reasonable especially if one considers the other texts that show what was generally happing on the 1st day of the week. 

Your point about "common meals" would make more sense to an Adventist who celebrates the Lord's Supper rarely throughout the whole year. The early Church celebrated The Eucharist EVERY time the Church assembled. As you probably know the Catholic Church holds Mass every day, holds Mass at Funerals, Weddings, etc. 

Your question about the Last Supper / Thursday and being Holy. 

It is Holy, that's why we call it "Holy Thursday" and it's part of "Holy Week". 

[GHansen]

47 minutes ago, Gustave said:

GHansen, no need for apology my new religious forum friend - seriously, no harm no foul. 

We wouldn't be worth our weight in salt if we didn't get at least a little dander up if after-all we REALLY believe what we say we do. 

My intention of using 1 Corinthians 16 was to show [again] that Christians were assembling on the first day of week. I take this text to establish that Christians were already (at this point) assembling themselves together on Sunday and Paul wanted them to have their gifts (gifts of offering) WITH THEM when they assembled. It's either this  OR

A) Paul would "come" to each individual believers house  to collect the gifts [ makes absolutely zero sense because who would keep their gifts of offering at someone else's house] Additionally if were as you said Paul would have put all the gathering on himself, which, according to the text, is the opposite of what he wanted. 

or

A.2) Paul expected the Christians to have already assembled with practicing Jews at the Temple or one of the many Sabbath Synagogues where they would have celebrated the Eucharist {blasphemy to devout Jews] and since Jews wouldn't give or collect money on the Sabbath Paul wanted Christians to assemble themselves together strictly for the purpose of making a collection for the Saints in Jerusalem. 

or

b) Christians were assembling "themselves" together in home Churches on the 1st day of every week where they would have bread and wine [Eucharist] & do those other things Pagan Roman spies reported they were doing (singing songs to Christ as a God, swearing to do no bad deeds and performing rituals over normal food and sharing it with those present). The Romans believed Christians were a Cannibal cult - thought they were actually eating people.

Paul knew Christians were assembling themselves together on the 1st day of the week and when he arrived he didn't want anyone running home to get their offering. 

C seems like the more reasonable especially if one considers the other texts that show what was generally happing on the 1st day of the week. 

Your point about "common meals" would make more sense to an Adventist who celebrates the Lord's Supper rarely throughout the whole year. The early Church celebrated The Eucharist EVERY time the Church assembled. As you probably know the Catholic Church holds Mass every day, holds Mass at Funerals, Weddings, etc. 

Your question about the Last Supper / Thursday and being Holy. 

It is Holy, that's why we call it "Holy Thursday" and it's part of "Holy Week". 

"My intention of using 1 Corinthians 16 was to show [again] that Christians were assembling on the first day of week." 

It doesn't show that. If anything, it shows the opposite because it says that they were to lay up what they had saved in their own house. The use of passages like this, simply because they mention the first day, doesn't help your cause. In this case, it practically argues against it.

"Paul knew Christians were assembling themselves together on the 1st day of the week and when he arrived he didn't want anyone running home to get their offering."

He was telling them to store it at home. Again, you are reading into the passage something which isn't there. Apparently you assume that whereever breaking bread is mentioned, that's the Lord's supper being celebrated. Understandable from an RC perspective with their fractio panis terminology but Scripture does not indicate that the breaking of bread always refers to the Lord's supper. On the contrary, if the cup is not mentioned in the immediate context, a common meal is being eaten. I Corinthians calls the eating of bread and wine the Lord's supper, not the eucharist or the fractio panis.

 

 

[Gustave]

Wanted to add this for consideration. 

1st Corinthians 16 says that everyone was to "lay by him in store" so that there would be "no gatherings" when Paul arrived. Look up the Strong's - this means on your person. 

A Pastor in a small town with a fast car would be hard pressed to deliver 20 pizza's in an 8 hour shift and its just not reasonable to believe that Paul would have scampered around to each believers house ( as if he would even known where everyone lived ). It's far more reasonable to believe that certain houses were dedicated as house Churches  and that Christians would assemble themselves in those houses. Paul would visit those houses containing the Christians from that area with each one having on their person the gifts they were offering to the Jerusalem. Church. 

 

 

[GHansen]

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

Wanted to add this for consideration. 

1st Corinthians 16 says that everyone was to "lay by him in store" so that there would be "no gatherings" when Paul arrived. Look up the Strong's - this means on your person. 

A Pastor in a small town with a fast car would be hard pressed to deliver 20 pizza's in an 8 hour shift and its just not reasonable to believe that Paul would have scampered around to each believers house ( as if he would even known where everyone lived ). It's far more reasonable to believe that certain houses were dedicated as house Churches  and that Christians would assemble themselves in those houses. Paul would visit those houses containing the Christians from that area with each one having on their person the gifts they were offering to the Jerusalem. Church. 

 

 

Lot of disagreement about the meaning of this text among commentators. It seems unreasonable to me that people were supposed to carry their savings around on their person.  Below is a small sample of how some commentators understand this passage, contra your view:

"The Greek phrase implies that the laying up was done at home, but when the money was accumulated, it was doubtless brought to the assembly and handed over to the presbyters."  Pulpit Commentary

"Upon the first day of the week (κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου)

Κατὰ has a distributive force, every first day. For week, lit., Sabbath, see on Acts 20:7.

Lay by him in store (παῤ ἑαυτῷ τιθέτω θησαυρίζων)

Lit., put by himself treasuring. Put by at home." Vincent's Word Studies

 

"1 Corinthians 16:2 rehearses the rule previously laid down for Galatia: “On every first (day) of the week let each of you by himself (= at home) lay up, making a store (of it), whatever he may be prospered in”. Expositor's Greek Testament

[GHansen]

Gustave, Luke 24:30, is that describing a common meal or the Lord's Supper? Why?

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, Luke 24:30, is that describing a common meal or the Lord's Supper? Why?

Mass

Jesus Himself officiating, vanishes right after He blesses the elements - as in they really becomes Christ! How could it not be understood? 

 

[Gustave]

Luke 24, 30, by the way, took place on a Sunday.

The whole point of 1 Corinthians 16 was for Christians to have "on themselves" their offering for the Church ON THE 1ST DAY OF THE WEEK which of course is when Christians assembled THEMSELVES together (i.e. not assembling with Jews practicing Judaism but with Christians practicing Christianity ).

I mean no offense here but it seems to save the Sabbath you are being forced to make 1 Corinthians 16 mean that Paul went to each individual Christians dwelling on the 1st day of the week AKA Paul wanted to do ALL the Gatherings himself. 

 

The term is "LAY [BREAK]  BY  [BREAK]  HIM [BREAK] in store

It was on the 1st day of the week that everyone was to have on themselves their offering. The early Christians scattered throughout the lands didn't get to see an Apostles each Sunday & 1 Corinthians 16 actually says just that. 

1 Corinthians 16,1: Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.  And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me. Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia.

Christian, Secular and Jewish history all attest to the fact Christians in the Apostolic age were assembling "themselves" together on the 1st day of the week. Your proposal would have Paul doing ALL the gathering he wanted to put an end to. Please reason this out. 

Paul didn't want any gatherings to take place WHEN HE CAME...

Came where? Each individuals house;

OR, were the Christians, on the 1st day of the week, to have their offerings "on their person" so when Paul showed up they simply put the offerings in a basket, bag or whatever container they used.???

One of these scenarios has no gatherings and the other has Paul doing one hell of a lot of gathering. This is why I say what I'm proposing is the more reasonable. I have no idea how many Churches [that's a plural] existed in Galatia but you can bet it was more than Paul could visit on any Sunday - NOW, using the process you're proposing imagine Paul or another Church Leader visiting every individual member of every individual Church. I'm not seeing how this would be possible. 

 

[GHansen]

On 7/16/2021 at 8:21 AM, Gustave said:

Luke 24, 30, by the way, took place on a Sunday.

The whole point of 1 Corinthians 16 was for Christians to have "on themselves" their offering for the Church ON THE 1ST DAY OF THE WEEK which of course is when Christians assembled THEMSELVES together (i.e. not assembling with Jews practicing Judaism but with Christians practicing Christianity ).

I mean no offense here but it seems to save the Sabbath you are being forced to make 1 Corinthians 16 mean that Paul went to each individual Christians dwelling on the 1st day of the week AKA Paul wanted to do ALL the Gatherings himself. 

 

The term is "LAY [BREAK]  BY  [BREAK]  HIM [BREAK] in store

It was on the 1st day of the week that everyone was to have on themselves their offering. The early Christians scattered throughout the lands didn't get to see an Apostles each Sunday & 1 Corinthians 16 actually says just that. 

1 Corinthians 16,1: Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.  And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me. Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia.

Christian, Secular and Jewish history all attest to the fact Christians in the Apostolic age were assembling "themselves" together on the 1st day of the week. Your proposal would have Paul doing ALL the gathering he wanted to put an end to. Please reason this out. 

Paul didn't want any gatherings to take place WHEN HE CAME...

Came where? Each individuals house;

OR, were the Christians, on the 1st day of the week, to have their offerings "on their person" so when Paul showed up they simply put the offerings in a basket, bag or whatever container they used.???

One of these scenarios has no gatherings and the other has Paul doing one hell of a lot of gathering. This is why I say what I'm proposing is the more reasonable. I have no idea how many Churches [that's a plural] existed in Galatia but you can bet it was more than Paul could visit on any Sunday - NOW, using the process you're proposing imagine Paul or another Church Leader visiting every individual member of every individual Church. I'm not seeing how this would be possible. 

 

Gustave, To be perfectly honest, I don't really know exactly what 1 Corinthians 16; 1,2 is talking about. I seriously doubt that you do either. You appear to have a narrative that you must force everything to fit. 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 is a difficult passage upon which commentators and translators don't entirely agree.  It's misguided to focus on an obscure passage to interpret the larger issue  of the Lord's supper and its bearing on Sunday sacredness. As I have stated numerous times, my position is that any reference to the breaking of bread which doesn't mention the cup is a reference to a common meal. That's something I'm confident of; consequently, the meal recorded in Luke 24 is to me OBVIOUSLY not a "mass" as you say. 1 Corinthians 11 is a passage that goes into detail about what it calls the Lord's Supper. Of course, both the cup and the bread are referenced. 1 Corinthians 16 isn't  discussing  a meal of any kind. Whatever they were doing was on a temporary basis until Paul arrived; consequently to use this passage to assert Sunday sacredness actually argues against it.

You have an active imagination which allows you to speculate on various scenarios which may have no basis in fact. What you consider reasonable as a result of your historical fantasies, I consider unlikely on the basis of the text. If you consider Sunday sacred, based on your imagination, that's fine for you. It's important to have a "religion" with which you are comfortable. I prefer to  accept the Scripture which says God blessed the 7th day. I'm comfortable with that.

Romans indicates that there were disputes over days in NT times. Probably the Sabbath was an issue in that dispute. It would be likely, considering that Gentile churches were  not schooled in Sabbath observance as were the Jews. Whether the same problems existed in other places, I can't say. What I can say, with a degree of certainty, is that the breaking of bread apart from the cup did not  indicate the Lord's Supper; consequently, even if Sunday was being observed, it wasn't designated by a sacred meal. There is something fishy about the first day in the NT, which is why people like yourself are so desperate to legitimize it's observance. Conflating the first day with the Lord's supper is one way of doing this.

 

[NOTE:  In a discussion with  GHansen, he has suggested that part of this post be deleted.  I have agreed to his suggestion and therefore, I have both deleted it an also my response to that part of his post--Gregory Matthews.]

 

 

[GHansen]

In the interest of completeness, when bread was broken to feed the multitudes, do you consider that a mass (Mt. 14:19, 15:36)? Also in Acts 27:35, when Paul broke bread on a ship with soldiers and criminals, do you believed that they were celebrating the mass or just having a common meal?

[Gustave]

1st, the miracle of the fish and loaves was anything but common, just like when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding that was anything but common wine. I've never thought about it but my answer would be no, the miracle of feeding the masses with the miracle fishes and loaves was not a Mass - I'd say in a way it prefigured the Mass however. 

You're right, neither of us were there at the time of 1 Corinthians 16 however in my case I'm leveraging Sacred Tradition while as as SDA you're likely leveraging all the visions Ellen White had on this subject - visions that would be incompatible with the way I see it. 

From my perspective this is rather easy in that I believe that the Church came before the New Testament Scriptures and the Church confirmed which Books were Scripture by testing the contents of those Books against the Sacred Traditions of the Church.  

I'm not used to the term "Sunday Sacredness"  but would agree that it was the Church that initiated the practice / tradition of Christian assembly on the 1st day of the week. So, provided that someone knew what we mean by this is that Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, John, Mark and others constituted "The Catholic Church" I'm fine with someone saying The Catholic Church started the Tradition of Christian assembly on Sunday because that in fact is the truth. 

"Breaking Bread" - I'd like you to consider what I'm going to say below after reading this Scripture.

Luke 24 41: But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.  And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?  Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.  And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.  And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?  And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.  And he took it, and did eat before them.  And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Its unlikely that Jesus grabbed some fish and honeycomb and just hammered it down without first making the Blessing but that act is MISSING from the text. Scripture didn't give an exact play by play of every action Jesus did - just those points the Authors were inspired to write down. In other words - just because "The cup" isn't mentioned with the term breaking bread doesn't mean the reference isn't to the Eucharist. The Traditions of the Church says it was - as did the secular Romans who spied on the early Christians. 

If I'm not mistaken Luther agrees with me here. 

You said you were confident that when "the cup" wasn't mentioned in conjunction with the breaking of bread it always means a common meal. Why are you confident and what if any answer do you have to my point about Luke 24, 41? 

1 Corinthians 16 informs us that all the Churches of Galatia as well as Corinth were "ordered" to have their collections on their person on the 1st day of the week. It's unreasonable and illogical to affirm that Paul (who didn't want any gatherings when He arrived) was referencing that every Christian would be inside their own dwelling? 

Think about this please - it is reasonable to conclude that 1st century Christians kept their savings at someone else's house? No, it isn't reasonable at all yet this is what you are claiming - i.e. when Paul knocked on an individuals door he didn't want that individual running off to who knows where to gather their gift of offering. 

It also doesn't make sense on account of the DAY this is to be done on - Paul ordered all the Churches in Galatia and Corinth to have their offerings in their house on Sunday so when Paul knocked on the door they could hand him the offering and then Paul breaks out in a sprint to the next believers house so he can collect the next offering and so on! This is not logical and frankly makes a mockery of what was going on. Paul didn't want any gatherings WHEN HE CAME. 

If as you claim Paul was coming to the individual believers house the offering would have been there anyway. The ONLY way this makes sense is if Christians were assembling themselves together ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK & Paul was "showing up" at the same assembly - and as he said:

"THAT THERE BE NO GATHERINGS WHEN I COME".

I know of no tradition or history that shows Christians weren't assembling in house Churches nor have a read or even seen anyone aside from Seventh-day Adventists claim 1 Corinthians 16 teaches that each Christian was to remain in their own house on the 1st day of the week waiting for Paul or other Church Leader to show up and take up the collection individually than run on over the next believers house. This is really strange. 

I like to think that I meet the issues head-on and that if I say I think so and so I've done thought experiments on what I've said to see if it's reasonable / logical and could play out in a skit. When I apply a thought experiment to  the scenario your proposing it doesn't come out good ( i.e. the guy who doesn't want any gathering (Paul) issues an order that requires him to do an unbelievable and impossible amount of Gathering - this would require something akin to a Character out of the Marvel Comic Universe. 

The only dispute over the Sabbath that I'm aware of was the Judaizers who insisted Christians were required to follow the law of Moses - this was shut down rather quickly. Colossians 2 also makes it very clear that the ceremonial aspects of the Law (specifically the Sabbath days) were not binding on Christians.

Like it or not 1 Corinthians 16 was BOUND on Christians  - it was an Apostolic order. See: Matthew 18:18.

[GHansen]

You're right, neither of us were there at the time of 1 Corinthians 16 however in my case I'm leveraging Sacred Tradition while as as SDA you're likely leveraging all the visions Ellen White had on this subject - visions that would be incompatible with the way I see it. 

There goes your imagination again. I have no idea what EGW said on this topic but now that you mention it, perhaps I should check. At least you admit what all good Roman Catholics do i.e., the role of tradition in shaping your beliefs, something that I reject completely.   It's tempting to let my imagination run wild in conjuring up a scenario that would justify my position. Since, at this point, I really don't understand exactly what 1 Corinthians 16:1,2 is saying, I hardly have a position. Since our conversation initially was about the Lord's supper attesting Sunday sacredness, the passage is for the most part irrelevant to this conversation. It's not about the Lord's supper, which is clearly elaborated upon, at length in various passages. 1 Corinthians 16: 1-3 is a one off appearance with no further elaboration.

You ask me to think about an imaginative scenario, which I'm not going to do because it's a product of your imagination. I'll be happy to think about the meaning of the text but not about your fantasies. I'm interested in what Scripture says, not  in winning an argument. Difficult passages take time to unfold. What I can find with a quick internet search or in a commentary doesn't resolve Scriptural difficulties. Luke 24: 41 et al, doesn't mention bread or the cup so it is also  irrelevant. What is relevant is Acts 27:35 where Paul took bread and blessed it prior to feeding a boatload  of people including soldiers and criminals. Do you consider this event to be a celebration of the "mass" as you call it?

[Gustave]

It's not imagination GHansen, it's a fact. The Church pre-existed the Bible as you know it & it was the Catholic Church that determined what Books would constitute the Bible. The New Testament was tested against the Sacred Tradition of the Church and that's why it exists as part of the Bible today. 

I'm afraid you've had your run - letting your imagination concoct a scenario that has the Apostle Paul doing precisely what he ordered not to be done ad nauseum to the point of an impossibility. My scenario is possible . 

The point of 1 Corinthians is simple, it's just the protocol for how the collection was to be taken up - if you wanted to give an offering you simply showed up [ with your offering] when Christians assembled themselves together. It seems that every time the Bible mentions Christians assembling themselves together it's ALWAYS on the first day of the week. 

Perhaps I'm missing something here, do you know of any instances where Christians were assembled together and broke bread, held a collection, listen to a sermon that wasn't on the 1st day of the week? 

 

[GHansen]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

It's not imagination GHansen, it's a fact. The Church pre-existed the Bible as you know it & it was the Catholic Church that determined what Books would constitute the Bible. The New Testament was tested against the Sacred Tradition of the Church and that's why it exists as part of the Bible today. 

I'm afraid you've had your run - letting your imagination concoct a scenario that has the Apostle Paul doing precisely what he ordered not to be done ad nauseum to the point of an impossibility. My scenario is possible . 

The point of 1 Corinthians is simple, it's just the protocol for how the collection was to be taken up - if you wanted to give an offering you simply showed up [ with your offering] when Christians assembled themselves together. It seems that every time the Bible mentions Christians assembling themselves together it's ALWAYS on the first day of the week. 

Perhaps I'm missing something here, do you know of any instances where Christians were assembled together and broke bread, held a collection, listen to a sermon that wasn't on the 1st day of the week? 

 

Christians gathered on Sunday in New Testament times. That doesn't make it a sacred day. Christians gather on Wednesday evening nowadays. Doesn't make it sacred. There are several passages in Acts where they heard the word on the Sabbath. Paul routinely went to the Synagogues and taught both Jews and Greeks on the Sabbath (Acts 17:2; 18:4). One Sabbath a group met by the river side on the Sabbath (Acts 16:134); another time, many Gentiles, nearly the entire city, came together on the Sabbath to hear the word of God  (Acts 13:44). So to answer your question, YES, there are passages in Acts that specifically mention people gathering on the Sabbath, NOT Sunday, to hear the word of God.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Gustave made the following statement.

*  In truth Gustave probably means any time in the Bible record. But, that is not what he said.

*  From the perspective of history, the issue of Sunday worship came into the Christian Chruch over a period of time.  It did not come all at once.  In addition it did not come at the same time in every place.  also, in some places Christians celebrated on both Saturdays and Sundays sometimes. 

*  While my following statement is simplistic and does not cover all aspects, worship on Sunday may have transitioned, in part from a yearly celebration of Christ coming out of the grave, which was on Sunday, to a weekly worship. 

*  All in all, this transition was complex and not subject to simple statements of fact.

Quote

Perhaps I'm missing something here, do you know of any instances where Christians were assembled together and broke bread, held a collection, listen to a sermon that wasn't on the 1st day of the week? 

[GHansen]

15 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave made the following statement.

*  In truth Gustave probably means any time in the Bible record. But, that is not what he said.

*  From the perspective of history, the issue of Sunday worship came into the Christian Chruch over a period of time.  It did not come all at once.  In addition it did not come at the same time in every place.  also, in some places Christians celebrated on both Saturdays and Sundays sometimes. 

*  While my following statement is simplistic and does not cover all aspects, worship on Sunday may have transitioned, in part from a yearly celebration of Christ coming out of the grave, which was on Sunday, to a weekly worship. 

*  All in all, this transition was complex and not subject to simple statements of fact.

 

 

Agreed! What is in dispute is whether the breaking of bread which took place on Sunday meetings was the Lord's supper, thereby evincing Sunday sacredness  having been well established in NT times, even before the Ascension.

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, GHansen said:

Christians gathered on Sunday in New Testament times. That doesn't make it a sacred day. Christians gather on Wednesday evening nowadays. Doesn't make it sacred. There are several passages in Acts where they heard the word on the Sabbath.

 

Christians assembled themselves together on the 1st day of the week by Apostolic order. Christians assembling themselves together with Jews who rejected Christianity DOESN'T count as Christians assembling themselves together. According to Hebrews 10, 25 a Christian who went to Sabbath Service at the Synagogue and called it good was SINNING for failing to assemble with Christians. 

There is zero doubt that Christians attended Synagogues and the Temple in the early formation of the Church - I know of no one who disputes that - what we're saying is that Christians WOULD NOT have celebrated the Eucharist in a Synagogue or Temple or around any devout Jews for that matter and Christians would never have made a collection on the Sabbath day as that would have offended the Jews almost as much as the Eucharist. 

The Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church (who separated from the Catholic Church over the 4th Council) -  from a tradition they say was handed down to them by Saint Mark the Apostle - meet every Sabbath / Saturday to hear the word similar to what they would have done in a Synagogue then go about their day AND on Sunday they gather for the full Liturgy. Sunday is the more important day on account of St. Mark's teaching but yet they hold Saturday Sabbath Service the same way they did in the 1st century A.D. - they also don't eat pork or other foods considered unclean by the law of Moses. Maybe these guys were protp-SDA's! 

Here is their Saturday Liturgy:  Very similar to Judaism