Ellen White & the Bible

[GHansen]

Gustave,

Christians gathered by the river on the Sabbath and there is no mention of  the Lord's supper being served. Apparently you are suggesting that Christians would not have the Lord's supper around unbelieving Jews but would have it on a boat loaded with Roman soldiers and criminals  (Acts 27:35). If you believe that, that's what you believe. The methods you employ to construct an authoritative teaching  are similar to methods employed by certain denominations to construct cultic beliefs such as baptism for the dead. You pick a couple of texts, rather obscure ones, such as 1 Corinthians 16: 1-3 and Hebrews 10 :25 and use these to construct a doctrine that Sunday replaces the Sabbath. Perhaps you have realized the futility of your attempt to make every meal the Lord's supper and are now employing a different approach to sanctify Sunday. 

The idea that the Emmaus supper was the Lord's supper on Sunday, evincing the sanctification of that day, before Jesus had even ascended, is unbelievable. Acts 16:13 specifically describes a place of prayer where believers gathered on the Sabbath day. There is nothing that explicit regarding Sunday in the NT. 

 

;.  

[Gustave]

Read Hebrews 10 again - the instruction was for Christians to not forsake the Assembling of themselves together. 

Strong's: G1997 ; The Religious Assembly of Christians

Strong's Definition: ἐπισυναγωγή episynagōgḗ, ep-ee-soon-ag-o-gay'; from G1996; a complete collection; especially a Christian meeting (for worship):—assembling (gathering) together.

Of course I suspect that now you will claim Strong's is part of the conspiracy and that definition is incorrect. You take up the collection in the SDA Church on the same day you assemble with other SDA's for worship. The problem you're having is that Scripture says the Collection  day for all the Churches in Galatia and Corinth was on Sunday - hate to break it to you - those early Christians had their collection on the same day that they assembled for worship.

 

Would you honestly assert that Acts 27 is depicting a Christian MEETING for worship? As you just said to me - "If you believe that , that's what you believe".  

What examples from the Bible do you have where Christians assembled THEMSELVES (excluding practicing Jews, Pagan Romans, Greeks, etc.) for "The Collection" or "WORSHIP" on any day other than the 1st day of the week. 

 

 

[GHansen]

Acts 27 is a group of people who are eating bread that has been blessed by Paul. Of course it is not a religious assembly. That's my point. The passage indicates that the breaking of bread, apart from the cup, is not the Lord's supper. You have been saying that the passages where bread is broken refer to the Lord's supper. Do  you now agree that, at least in that passage, which is obviously not a religious assembly, the breaking of bread does not signify the Lord's supper? 

The gathering by the river side for prayer on the Sabbath in Acts 16 is an example of Christians gathering for a religious meeting on the Sabbath.

[GHansen]

Incidentally, Gustave, you might want to give some more thought to the word "assemble." It doesn't mean to assemble for religious purposes. It means to assemble for whatever purpose. Context defines it.  Strong's is wrong if it defines the word as specifying a  religious assembly. Strong's was a great tool; however, the people that developed the Online Bible corrected thousands of mistakes in it during the digitalization process. Note the following:

Mr 1:33  And all the city was "gathered together" at the door.

Lu 12:1  In the mean time, when there were "gathered together" <1996> an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Heb 10:25  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.

Mr 13:27  And then shall he send his angels, and "shall gather together"  his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

[Gustave]

10 hours ago, GHansen said:

Acts 27 is a group of people who are eating bread that has been blessed by Paul. Of course it is not a religious assembly. That's my point. The passage indicates that the breaking of bread, apart from the cup, is not the Lord's supper. You have been saying that the passages where bread is broken refer to the Lord's supper. Do  you now agree that, at least in that passage, which is obviously not a religious assembly, the breaking of bread does not signify the Lord's supper? 

The gathering by the river side for prayer on the Sabbath in Acts 16 is an example of Christians gathering for a religious meeting on the Sabbath.

 

 

Acts 27 was a group of people who had no option of not being in that group LOL! When you're on a ship, essentially against your own will that's hardly a qualifier for the definition in Strong's now is it! LOL! I've got to hand it to you, somehow you've managed in incorporate a level of humor into this conversation and I thank you for that! 

 

So when Hebrews 10 informs you to not forsake the assembling of yourself with other Christians (for the purpose of worship) THE SAME DISTINCTION your drawing with breaking bread exists with assembly. That's my point. 

I have no issue whatsoever with the history of early Christians going to the Synagogue  for the Liturgy of the Hours, this is something that I can't see any conflict between a practicing Christian and a practicing Jew as its just a continuation of Judaism - my point is that Christians didn't assemble to conduct actual worship (celebrate the Eucharist) with practicing Jews as that would have been viewed as blasphemous. 

Before the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem the Synagogue was just a Jewish "town hall", like a Grange or Elks Club - it was a place where Jews would go to hob nob, visit that was safe for all things Jewish - in particular things related to Jewish Business. The Temple was where you went to WORSHIP.

After the destruction of the Temple the Synagogue became a place of worship as good as could be accomplished without an actual temple. 

What I'm saying, what literally 99% of Christians are saying, is that the early Church assembled themselves together for worship APART from any 'gatherings' they also had with Jews practicing Judaism at Synagogues. This is reasonable given that Jewish converts to Christianity had very deep Jewish Roots and hanging out at one's Synagogue would have been like the favorite diner or bowling ally - it would have been natural. 

A Greek or Roman who converted from Paganism would have had no such connection to a Synagogue, wouldn't have went there and wouldn't have started going there, they would have just assembled with other Christians for Christian assembly (WORSHIP0 - which, according to Scripture generally if not always, took place on Sunday -the same day the Collection was held on. 

 

 

 

 

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, GHansen said:

Incidentally, Gustave, you might want to give some more thought to the word "assemble." It doesn't mean to assemble for religious purposes. It means to assemble for whatever purpose. Context defines it.  Strong's is wrong if it defines the word as specifying a  religious assembly. Strong's was a great tool; however, the people that developed the Online Bible corrected thousands of mistakes in it during the digitalization process. Note the following:

Mr 1:33  And all the city was "gathered together" at the door.

Lu 12:1  In the mean time, when there were "gathered together" <1996> an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Heb 10:25  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.

Mr 13:27  And then shall he send his angels, and "shall gather together"  his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

 

I predicted you'd say this LOL! 

Mark 1, 33: "And all the city was "gathered together' at the door". 

The "PURPOSE" there, was to gather together AT THE DOOR to the house where Jesus was staying because people were desperate for healing. This isn't Christians assembling to worship Christ as God Almighty. You know this. 

 

Luke 12,1: "Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: “Be^[ on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy."

Again, this is so far outside the context of what Hebrews 10, 25 is addressing its not worth mentioning. 

You can't confound simple "descriptive texts" and claim they are prescriptive - that's what you're doing here. 

If you applied this logic external to our existing discussion you'd argue since there are descriptive texts in the New Testament after Jesus' Resurrection where the Apostles Participated in Temple worship and even Jewish feasts than that means those texts are prescriptive for Christians to observe Jewish feasts - LOL! Come on! 

Hebrews 10,25 is a prescriptive text addressed to what Christians ARE TO DO while the texts you offered in rebuttal to my position are merely texts describing OTHER various forms of gathering unrelated to the context Hebrews enjoins on believers. 

Like you said - CONTEXT DEFINES IT. Now you just have to apply the context and connect the big bold dots

 

[Gustave]

12 hours ago, GHansen said:

The gathering by the river side for prayer on the Sabbath in Acts 16 is an example of Christians gathering for a religious meeting on the Sabbath.

 

 

That text is descriptive of Paul preaching the Gospel to unbelievers - the text is not PRESCRIPTIVE for worship on the Sabbath day. 

"On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.  One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message."

All examples you cite will end up the same - texts that are descriptive of what efforts Paul made in spreading the Gospel. This just made me think of something. Do SDA's generally "spread the Gospel" on Saturday (the day they assemble for worship) OR would you say that SDA outreach efforts to what they consider to be unbelievers of Adventism  are generally focused on days OTHER THAN THE SABBATH? 

Please answer this. 

 

[GHansen]

Gustave said: "Christians assembled themselves together on the 1st day of the week by Apostolic order. "  Which text contains the Apostolic order to assemble on the first day

Ac 20:7  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.

1Co 16:2  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.

Gustave said:  "So when Hebrews 10 informs you to not forsake the assembling of So when Hebrews 10 informs you to not forsake the assembling of yourself with other Christians (for the purpose of worship)  THE SAME DISTINCTION your drawing with breaking bread exists with assembly. That's my point."   What part of Hebrews says that they were to assemble for "worship?"  I don't see  the word "worship" there.  Maybe you should explain what you mean by worship. If Christians assemble for prayer or fellowship, is that worship? Is the "eucharist" essential to worship. Really not sure what you are talking about here, since the term worship is not in the verse or immediate context.

Re: Acts 27. Do you agree that the breaking of bread  on the ship is describing an ordinary meal?

If you have questions about SDA beliefs/practices, direct them to Chaplain Matthews. I assume he is an ordained SDA clergyman. He can speak as a legitimate source on SDA issues.

[Gustave]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Gustave said: "Christians assembled themselves together on the 1st day of the week by Apostolic order. "  Which text contains the Apostolic order to assemble on the first day

Ac 20:7  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.

1Co 16:2  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.

Gustave said:  "So when Hebrews 10 informs you to not forsake the assembling of So when Hebrews 10 informs you to not forsake the assembling of yourself with other Christians (for the purpose of worship)  THE SAME DISTINCTION your drawing with breaking bread exists with assembly. That's my point."   What part of Hebrews says that they were to assemble for "worship?"  I don't see  the word "worship" there.  Maybe you should explain what you mean by worship. If Christians assemble for prayer or fellowship, is that worship? Is the "eucharist" essential to worship. Really not sure what you are talking about here, since the term worship is not in the verse or immediate context.

Re: Acts 27. Do you agree that the breaking of bread  on the ship is describing an ordinary meal?

If you have questions about SDA beliefs/practices, direct them to Chaplain Matthews. I assume he is an ordained SDA clergyman. He can speak as a legitimate source on SDA issues.

 

 

Consider the following Verses.

1 Corinthians 14, 26:  "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying". = coming together as a Church.

 

1 Corinthians 11, 20:  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.  What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. = coming together as a Church

Are you reading the above Scripture to be prescriptive admonishing  to Christians NOT to eat the Lord's Supper when THEY come together into one place? Or would you say that this text is descriptive of a Christian assembly where the abuses of the Eucharist required Apostolic admonishing? If you agree it's the latter - this text proves that Christian assembly = celebration of the Eucharist. The Eucharist IS THE WORSHIP we offer God. That's all we have to offer. 

In the early Christian Church Christians were assembling themselves together for Worship - Christianity started out as a small cult within Judaism. This is where ignorance of secular history and Church history is really hurting you. 

 

My personal guess is that the Acts 27 is describing a regular meal because this was not a Christian assembly as I pointed out before. Roman soldiers were on the boat - multiple people who were said to be observing the fast Jews traditionally hold for the D.O.A. 

I can say that Acts 2 shows that the converts "DEVOTED THEMSELFS" to Apostolic fellowship, teaching and the breaking of Bread. I highly doubt this is speaking of Christian converts devotion to "common meals". As you can see there is no reference to "the cup" mentioned here and if you choose to believe that the early Christians devoted themselves to common meals that is certainly your right. I guess you'd have to say that having common meals is an Apostolic  prescriptive of how Christians should conduct themselves.

[GHansen]

Gustave, It was pointed out to me that my illustration involving the relic and the pig was offensive. I intended to show that people's background and beliefs impact their view of things, including Scripture. Sorry I didn't choose a different illustration.

[NOTE:  In a discussion with  GHansen, he has suggested that the above illustration be deleted.  I have agreed to his suggestion and therefore, I have both deleted it and also my response to that part of his post,. It is gone not to be seen again--Gregory Matthews.]

As for Acts 27, that is something we can both agree upon. The "breaking of bread" in that passage refers to a common meal. I'd like to review this passage: 

33  And while the day was coming on, Paul besought [them] all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.
34  Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35  And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken [it], he began to eat.
36  Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took [some] meat.
37  And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
38  And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea.

Please note:  "Paul besought [them] all to take meat,"  "take [some] meat:" "he began to eat." "they also took [some] meat, "when they had eaten enough," 

The word "meat" simply refers to food, as I'm sure you know.  Compare these 2 passages:  Ac 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat <3335> their meat <5160> with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 27:33 And while the day was coming on, Paul besought [them] all to take <3335> meat <5160>, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.

In both passages the same words are used.  What Paul admonishes in  27:33 is what they were doing in 2:46 i.e., they were going from house to house sharing food with their brethren

[Gustave]

On 7/18/2021 at 5:31 PM, GHansen said:

Gustave, It was pointed out to me that my illustration involving the relic and the pig was offensive. I intended to show that people's background and beliefs impact their view of things, including Scripture. Sorry I didn't choose a different illustration.

[NOTE:  In a discussion with  GHansen, he has suggested that the above illustration be deleted.  I have agreed to his suggestion and therefore, I have both deleted it and also my response to that part of his post,. It is gone not to be seen again--Gregory Matthews.]

As for Acts 27, that is something we can both agree upon. The "breaking of bread" in that passage refers to a common meal. I'd like to review this passage: 

33  And while the day was coming on, Paul besought [them] all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.
34  Wherefore I pray you to take [some] meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you.
35  And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken [it], he began to eat.
36  Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took [some] meat.
37  And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.
38  And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea.

Please note:  "Paul besought [them] all to take meat,"  "take [some] meat:" "he began to eat." "they also took [some] meat, "when they had eaten enough," 

The word "meat" simply refers to food, as I'm sure you know.  Compare these 2 passages:  Ac 2:46  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat <3335> their meat <5160> with gladness and singleness of heart,

Acts 27:33 And while the day was coming on, Paul besought [them] all to take <3335> meat <5160>, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing.

In both passages the same words are used.  What Paul admonishes in  27:33 is what they were doing in 2:46 i.e., they were going from house to house sharing food with their brethren

 

 

It's all good, I'm thick skinned whereas it comes to discussing religion. 

The difference between Acts 27 and Acts 2, 42 is evident. In the case of Acts 27 the majority of the sailors hadn't eaten for 14 days and Paul urged them to eat for the purpose of their physical heath. The text comes right out and says THAT's why they were eating. 

In the case of Acts 2, 42 the context is all worship / spiritual. The converts "devoted themselves" (were adherents) to:  Doctrine & fellowship AND the Breaking of Bread. This is certainly a religious context. We know from history that certain Christian homes were designated as Churches and we know from both Sacred and Secular History that for the early Christians the big deal part of their worship WAS the Eucharist. In the Mass the Liturgy of the Hours come straight out of the Temple / Synagogues - the Eucharist (worship) was done apart from practicing Jews who didn't believe Jesus was who the Apostles said He was. 

One thing I'm sure you did get right was that you are not going to convince me that Paul ordered the Christians to not be gathering when he showed up - SO THAT PAUL COULD ALL THE GATHERING HIMSELF (from house to house to house) and I'm evidently not going to convince you that on the 1st day of the week Christians assembled themselves together to do thing like take a collection or celebrate the Eucharist. One thing for sure is that we each now know each others reasons for the the beliefs we have and that's a good thing. 

 

 

 

 

[GHansen]

Gustave, I agree that the Lord's Supper was an important part of Christian worship. It should be. Some Christian churches still have a weekly service. Others do not. This is likely due to a lack of accountability in churches today. Ideally, congregants would meet weekly with Elders or Deacons to give account of their walk with Jesus in preparation for the Lord's Supper. That just doesn't happen in many churches. There is no accountability. People live in sin and still go to church, take communion and go on their way. In the past, people were not allowed to the Lord's Supper if there were irregularities in their life. Calvin had a huge conflict over this issue with the Libertines. John Wesley was compelled to leave America after denying communion to an influential woman. Alienating people costs money in terms of lost tithe and offerings; consequently, corporate denominations tend to live and let live.  

 

Regarding 1 Corinthians 16, are you saying that the expressioin  "that there be no gatherings when I come" means that the people would not meet together  at that time or  no money be collected at that time.

[GHansen]

9 hours ago, Gustave said:

In the case of Acts 2, 42 the context is all worship / spiritual. The converts "devoted themselves" (were adherents) to:  Doctrine & fellowship AND the Breaking of Bread. This is certainly a religious context. We know from history that certain Christian homes were designated as Churches and we know from both Sacred and Secular History that for the early Christians the big deal part of their worship WAS the Eucharist. In the Mass the Liturgy of the Hours come straight out of the Temple / Synagogues - the Eucharist (worship) was done apart from practicing Jews who didn't believe Jesus was who the Apostles said He was. 

 

 

 

 

 

Note how the context of Acts 2: 42 in the Jerusalem Bible indicates that the breaking of bread refers to ordinary eating. Verse 46 illuminates verse 46:   

42 These remained faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers.

43 And everyone was filled with awe; the apostles worked many signs and miracles.

44 And all who shared the faith owned everything in common;

45 they sold their goods and possessions and distributed the proceeds among themselves according to what each one needed.

46 Each day, with one heart, they regularly went to the Temple but met in their houses for the breaking of bread; they shared their food gladly and generously;

47 they praised God and were looked up to by everyone. Day by day the Lord added to their community those destined to be saved. Jerusalem Bible

 

42 ¶  And they continued steadfastly in the teaching, of the apostles and they took part in prayer and in the breaking of bread.
43  And fear came upon every soul; and many miracles and wonders were done by the apostles in Jerusalem.
44  And all believers were together and had all things in common;
45  And those who had possessions sold them and divided to each man according to his need.
46  And they went to the temple every day with one accord; and at home they broke bread and received food with joy and with a pure heart,
47  Praising God and finding favor with all the people. And our Lord daily increased the congregation of the church. Lamsa version

The context, especially verse 46, explains verse 42

[Gustave]

I can assure you that the contributors  of the Jerusalem Bible believed that the term breaking bread in Acts 2, 42 refers to the Eucharist. Tolkien had a serious devotion to the Eucharist. 

[GHansen]

Gustave, a lot of problems r/t the Bible are simply about literacy and preconceived opinions. What the Jerusalem Bible translators believed or what Tolkien believed are completely irrelevant, unless the translators allowed their ideology to impact their translation. A very famous lexicographer supposedly admitted that he allowed the beliefs of his denomination to affect his lexicon entry in a specific case. You talk about context but when one considers it, context works against your views, at least in the case of Acts 2:42, 46.

In certain respects, I'm more interested in hermeneutics than theology. That's one reason I continue to examine these texts and question you about what they actually mean. I wonder if you understand that the gatherings of 1 Corinthians aren't about assemblies of people but about collections of money. Lamsa captures the sense of the text: 

1 ¶  NOW concerning the collection for the saints: as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, likewise do you also.
2  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. You do understand that, right? 

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, GHansen said:

Gustave, a lot of problems r/t the Bible are simply about literacy and preconceived opinions. What the Jerusalem Bible translators believed or what Tolkien believed are completely irrelevant, unless the translators allowed their ideology to impact their translation. A very famous lexicographer supposedly admitted that he allowed the beliefs of his denomination to affect his lexicon entry in a specific case. You talk about context but when one considers it, context works against your views, at least in the case of Acts 2:42, 46.

In certain respects, I'm more interested in hermeneutics than theology. That's one reason I continue to examine these texts and question you about what they actually mean. I wonder if you understand that the gatherings of 1 Corinthians aren't about assemblies of people but about collections of money. Lamsa captures the sense of the text: 

1 ¶  NOW concerning the collection for the saints: as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, likewise do you also.
2  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. You do understand that, right? 

 

"The Church" existed long prior to the "New Testament" this is why Apostolic instruction said:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle"

The "Traditions", according to EVERY Church in the Holy Lands that trace their roots back to the Apostles unanimously attest that the Tradition of Christians gathering themselves together for celebrating the Eucharist on the 1st day of the week was an Apostolic Tradition. Even the Churches who separated from Catholic Church in the 4th century say this - even the "heretics" throughout history said this. Secular history says this. 

The Ethiopian Tewahedo (no friends of Catholicism) claim they were Apostolically instructed by St. Matthew & Bartholomew  - the Tewahedo assemble themselves for a Sabbath Service AND a (according to them more important) Sunday Service where they hold a very strict Eucharist celebration. The point I'm making is that the Tewahedo were what history called JUDAIZERS in that they observed the dietary restrictions of the law of Moses, met on the Sabbath BUT not at the expense of Sunday because that's the tradition handed down to them. 

The Tewahedo also disagreed with the Catholic Church on what constituted the Bible. Tewahedo include 

• The Book of Enoch
• Jubilees
• 1st, 2nd & 3rd Meqabyan

The point is that these folks are ANCIENT yet they are in lock step with what Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, and literally everyone else (to include the Mormons) say about the Apostolic Tradition of Sunday being the day Christians gathered on. 

 

Acts 2, 42-46:  And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The text says these new converts to Christianity continued DAILY in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. 

This tells me that the early Jewish Christians were assembling with practicing Jews at the Temple in Jerusalem - we know for Jewish Tradition that they NEVER have collections on the Sabbath and it would have been considered blasphemous to offer the Eucharist as the Sacrifice at the Temple or in the presence of ANY Jew that practiced Judaism. 

When Hebrews 10,25 clearly spells out that it's a sin for Christians to not assemble themselves together because if they fail to do so there isn't a sacrifice for sins! 

"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".

The ONLY sacrifice I know of that the Bible mentions that replaced the Old Covenant system of Sacrifice is the Eucharist, AKA Holy Communion AKA The Lord's Supper and we're told in Scripture that Sacrifice took place when Christians assembled themselves together. 

Acts 20, 7: 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.

The text literally says the reason they came together WAS TO BREAK BREAD because that's WHEN  they did it.To me this sounds like they were fulfilling Hebrews 10, 25 to a literal T! 

Your hermeneutics are off because your interpretation is wildly illogical and hermeneutics are ALL about interpretation are they not? 

1 Corinthians definitely speaks of "the assembly of people": 

1 Corinthians 11, 17:  But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.  For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,  for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.  When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.^[b]  For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.  What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

That's very forthright in saying that the early Christians had houses to eat COMMON MEALS AND DRINK IN so Christians, WHEN THEY ASSEMBLE THEMSELVES TOGETHER as Christians should pay the Eucharist the honor and respect it deserves. This text is undermines your Christian secular communal meal theory. 

When Christians assemble as a Church there are certain things common to this assembly.

• Scriptures are read
• A Homily or Sermon is given
• A collection takes place
• The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is celebrated.

All of the above is described as happening in Acts 20, 7 - this is very reasonable and logical to assert because if Paul had ordered ALL the Churches of Galatia and Corinth to have their offerings WITH THEM on the 1st day of the week we see in Acts 20, 7 -... just what generally took place on the 1st day of the week in Apostolic Times. 

It would have been impossible for a Christian hanging out at home waiting for Paul to show up so he could hand the offering over to him if Paul was instead meeting groups of Christians "ASSEMBLED AS A CHURCH" whereas Paul would be preaching for hours, breaking bread and collecting everyone's offering. This just isn't reasonable or logical to believe because it would EXCLUDE any Christian from being able to participate in Acts 20, 7 - which hermeneutically and contextually is descriptive of Christians "assembled themselves together as a Church". 

Conversely if it was as you claim Paul couldn't have spent hours preaching, celebrating the Eucharist, etc. on the 1st day of the week if he was running (not jogging) to EVERY believers residence so he could pick up their gift offerings. Seriously, the more questions you ask me about this the more reasons I'm giving you as to why your way just isn't reasonable or logical (hermeneutical). 

This reminds me of the SDA / JW argument I've heard countless time that the name Michael, in Hebrew, means "WHO IS LIKE GOD". As in a teacher asks a bunch of little kids the question 'WHO IS LIKE GOD' and they all answer back, 'Michael is like God'! 

When the fact of the matter is that the name meaning in Hebrew is a rhetorical question with the answer being 'NO ONE IS LIKE GOD!'

The actual Hebrew meaning for Michael is "WHO IS LIKE GOD?" [see the question mark]  Answer = NO ONE. 

This Sunday discussion is starting to feel a lot like the Hebrew name meaning of Michael to me. I don't know how much more of it I can take LOL!

 

 

[GHansen]

46 minutes ago, Gustave said:

 

"The Church" existed long prior to the "New Testament" this is why Apostolic instruction said:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle"

The "Traditions", according to EVERY Church in the Holy Lands that trace their roots back to the Apostles unanimously attest that the Tradition of Christians gathering themselves together for celebrating the Eucharist on the 1st day of the week was an Apostolic Tradition. Even the Churches who separated from Catholic Church in the 4th century say this - even the "heretics" throughout history said this. Secular history says this. 

The Ethiopian Tewahedo (no friends of Catholicism) claim they were Apostolically instructed by St. Matthew & Bartholomew  - the Tewahedo assemble themselves for a Sabbath Service AND a (according to them more important) Sunday Service where they hold a very strict Eucharist celebration. The point I'm making is that the Tewahedo were what history called JUDAIZERS in that they observed the dietary restrictions of the law of Moses, met on the Sabbath BUT not at the expense of Sunday because that's the tradition handed down to them. 

The Tewahedo also disagreed with the Catholic Church on what constituted the Bible. Tewahedo include 

• The Book of Enoch
• Jubilees
• 1st, 2nd & 3rd Meqabyan

The point is that these folks are ANCIENT yet they are in lock step with what Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, and literally everyone else (to include the Mormons) say about the Apostolic Tradition of Sunday being the day Christians gathered on. 

 

Acts 2, 42-46:  And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.  And all that believed were together, and had all things common;  And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.  And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,  Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

The text says these new converts to Christianity continued DAILY in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. 

This tells me that the early Jewish Christians were assembling with practicing Jews at the Temple in Jerusalem - we know for Jewish Tradition that they NEVER have collections on the Sabbath and it would have been considered blasphemous to offer the Eucharist as the Sacrifice at the Temple or in the presence of ANY Jew that practiced Judaism. 

When Hebrews 10,25 clearly spells out that it's a sin for Christians to not assemble themselves together because if they fail to do so there isn't a sacrifice for sins! 

"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".

The ONLY sacrifice I know of that the Bible mentions that replaced the Old Covenant system of Sacrifice is the Eucharist, AKA Holy Communion AKA The Lord's Supper and we're told in Scripture that Sacrifice took place when Christians assembled themselves together. 

Acts 20, 7: 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.

The text literally says the reason they came together WAS TO BREAK BREAD because that's WHEN  they did it.To me this sounds like they were fulfilling Hebrews 10, 25 to a literal T! 

Your hermeneutics are off because your interpretation is wildly illogical and hermeneutics are ALL about interpretation are they not? 

1 Corinthians definitely speaks of "the assembly of people": 

1 Corinthians 11, 17:  But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.  For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,  for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.  When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.^[b]  For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.  What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

That's very forthright in saying that the early Christians had houses to eat COMMON MEALS AND DRINK IN so Christians, WHEN THEY ASSEMBLE THEMSELVES TOGETHER as Christians should pay the Eucharist the honor and respect it deserves. This text is undermines your Christian secular communal meal theory. 

When Christians assemble as a Church there are certain things common to this assembly.

• Scriptures are read
• A Homily or Sermon is given
• A collection takes place
• The Sacrifice of the Eucharist is celebrated.

All of the above is described as happening in Acts 20, 7 - this is very reasonable and logical to assert because if Paul had ordered ALL the Churches of Galatia and Corinth to have their offerings WITH THEM on the 1st day of the week we see in Acts 20, 7 -... just what generally took place on the 1st day of the week in Apostolic Times. 

It would have been impossible for a Christian hanging out at home waiting for Paul to show up so he could hand the offering over to him if Paul was instead meeting groups of Christians "ASSEMBLED AS A CHURCH" whereas Paul would be preaching for hours, breaking bread and collecting everyone's offering. This just isn't reasonable or logical to believe because it would EXCLUDE any Christian from being able to participate in Acts 20, 7 - which hermeneutically and contextually is descriptive of Christians "assembled themselves together as a Church". 

Conversely if it was as you claim Paul couldn't have spent hours preaching, celebrating the Eucharist, etc. on the 1st day of the week if he was running (not jogging) to EVERY believers residence so he could pick up their gift offerings. Seriously, the more questions you ask me about this the more reasons I'm giving you as to why your way just isn't reasonable or logical (hermeneutical). 

This reminds me of the SDA / JW argument I've heard countless time that the name Michael, in Hebrew, means "WHO IS LIKE GOD". As in a teacher asks a bunch of little kids the question 'WHO IS LIKE GOD' and they all answer back, 'Michael is like God'! 

When the fact of the matter is that the name meaning in Hebrew is a rhetorical question with the answer being 'NO ONE IS LIKE GOD!'

The actual Hebrew meaning for Michael is "WHO IS LIKE GOD?" [see the question mark]  Answer = NO ONE. 

This Sunday discussion is starting to feel a lot like the Hebrew name meaning of Michael to me. I don't know how much more of it I can take LOL!

 

 

We can end this discussion any time you like. Acts 2 says that bread was broken from house to house and the food[bread] was eaten with gladness. That  obviously  refers to food eaten for nourishment.  1 Corinthians 16, we apparently disagree on what the text is saying. I understand the passage to mean that the believers were on the first day of each week, to put some money aside. They were to have the money ready when Paul arrived. Acts 20, again, people gathering for a meal together. You say that this is what generally took place on the first day, Christians assembled. Apparently you consider the gathering by the river side an anomaly, even though that's one indisputable assembly for prayer on the Sabbath wherein no mention of bread is mentioned.

I've read enough history to know that your assertions about universal acceptance of Sunday among Christians  in apostolic times are patently false. Any good history of the Sabbath will reveal the error of that statement. Here's a link to a brief treatment  of the subject:  Andrews University (friendsofsabbath.org) The fact that there was a conflict over days, ,especially in Rome, indicates that there was not universal acceptance of any specific days.

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, GHansen said:

We can end this discussion any time you like. Acts 2 says that bread was broken from house to house and the food[bread] was eaten with gladness. That  obviously  refers to food eaten for nourishment.  1 Corinthians 16, we apparently disagree on what the text is saying. I understand the passage to mean that the believers were on the first day of each week, to put some money aside. They were to have the money ready when Paul arrived. Acts 20, again, people gathering for a meal together. You say that this is what generally took place on the first day, Christians assembled. Apparently you consider the gathering by the river side an anomaly, even though that's one indisputable assembly for prayer on the Sabbath wherein no mention of bread is mentioned.

I've read enough history to know that your assertions about universal acceptance of Sunday among Christians  in apostolic times are patently false. Any good history of the Sabbath will reveal the error of that statement. Here's a link to a brief treatment  of the subject:  Andrews University (friendsofsabbath.org) The fact that there was a conflict over days, ,especially in Rome, indicates that there was not universal acceptance of any specific days.

I'll review your patently false assertion and get back with you. 

[Gustave]

I'm on my 8th page of the Andrews paper and already see problems with it. I see that they have re-defined established words (similar to what SDA's do with the Trinity). There was no Sacrifice going on in the Synagogues. Synagogues, like starting the Sabbath on the prior evening is a "Tradition" not based in Scripture. Because "Tradition", according to God, is valid that's why we see mention of Synagogues in the New Testament. 

Jesus said of Himself that He was greater than the Temple - at Jesus' time actual "WORSHIP" took place at the Temple with a Sacrifice. After the Roman Army destroyed the Temple Judaism REPLACED the Sacrifice with prayers and it was then that Synagogues BECAME places of worship - prior to that there were places of learning, communal halls for parties, discussing business matters, etc. 

All the Scriptures I've seen through page 8 merely show Jesus going to the Synagogue to teach, read Scripture or participate in the Liturgy of the Hours. These things going on in the Synagogues on the Sabbath day approximated what was actually going on IN THE TEMPLE. Because prayers were said (Scriptures read out loud) at certain times throughout the day in the Temple as Liturgy the Synagogue would copy that activity as best they could - of course no Sacrifice was going on in the Synagogues. 

Synagogue participation while the Temple was still standing WAS NOT WORSHIP. Look at the cases in the New Testament where the word worship is used and you'll find a bunch relating directly to Jesus being "worshiped" as a Baby. Aside from Christ the term worship is applied to the Temple. 

The Temple had a Liturgy going on daily - the Synagogue mimicked the Temple's Liturgy as much as it could minus the worship. Jesus invalidated worship at the Temple with His death and Resurrection thereby invalidating the Synagogues purpose as it was only a reflection of some aspects of the Temple. Therefore the Synagogues were basically a FISHING HOLE the Apostolic Church was jigging Jews out of. It's as simple as that. 

I see that the article will be making mention of the Eastern Orthodox Church, I'll be interested to see what Andrews University has to say about the Orthodox! More to follow but alas I have to work.

[GHansen]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

Gustave: I've read enough history to know that your assertions about universal acceptance of Sunday among Christians  in apostolic times are patently false. Any good history of the Sabbath will reveal the error of that statement. Here's a link to a brief treatment  of the subject:  Andrews University (friendsofsabbath.org) The fact that there was a conflict over days, ,especially in Rome, indicates that there was not universal acceptance of any specific days." 

That paper was submitted to demonstrate that your statement "The "Traditions", according to EVERY Church in the Holy Lands that trace their roots back to the Apostles unanimously attest that the Tradition of Christians gathering themselves together for celebrating the Eucharist on the 1st day of the week was an Apostolic Tradition" is false, patently so. The historical sources cited in that paper are well known to most people who have done basic reading on the history of Sabbath observance and the Sunday question.

[Gustave]

Those churches that the article mentions don't exist today. I have no issue whatsoever of historians pointing back to sects or outspoken individuals who disobeyed the findings of the Jerusalem Council  in Acts 15. Christian historians have known since the beginning that SOME folks believed that the Apostles were WRONG and went their own way. 

1 John 2, 9:  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Much like Ellen G White said that Lucifer felt that God was WRONG in some decisions that were made - Scripture attests that some people who STARTED with the Apostles DIDN'T finish with the Apostles, they went their own way. 

The article mentions the Ebionites because they cherished the Sabbath - the Ebionites rejected the Divinity of Christ and also claimed that Jesus was born of Mary after Joseph gave her a proper "Rodger-ing". Believed in ritualistic washings and claimed that Jesus was just a regular guy who obeyed the law SO GOOD that he morphed into the Messiah. 

The article mentions the Ostrogoths and Visigoths in that they were Sabbath Keepers, at least the article was honest enough in that case to openly admit that those groups were militantly ANTI TRINITARIAN.

So, what the Article is doing is illustrating small sects or cults throughout history that worshipped on the Sabbath despite the fact that those sects and cults taught the very doctrine of antichrist. 

I'm still going through it and have reached out to somewhat of an expert on the Greek Orthodox Church for a more scholarly distilling of the main point about the Sabbath in that article in the context of what the Orthodox Church believed / believes.  

 

[GHansen]

Gustave, You might want to review the section "Sabbath keeping Christians" before dismissing Sabbath keepers of early times as exclusively sectarians or heretics. Regardless of their beliefs, it's clear that there was not universal agreement on Sunday sacredness, as you state. The reason I offered this document is to demonstrate that the broad brush with which you paint the early history of the Sabbath issue requires  a significant reduction in size. 

The author of the paper did not explore certain areas which bear greater scrutiny. He begins with the Jewish problem in Rome during the reign of Hadrian circa  A.D.179 but we know from the NT (Acts 18:2) that Priscilla and Aquilla fled Rome circa A.D. 49, when  Claudius  banished the Jews. The ramifications of the Jewish exile and return to Rome at that early date have significant impact on Sabbath/Sunday issues. He also doesn't explore the implications  of the reference he cites from the "Acts of John." The "Lord's day" is clearly defined as the 7th day.

[Gregory Matthews]

The so-called Acts of John is an apocryphal text, probably written sometime in the 2nd century. possibly in the 3rd century.

In one of its stories, John commands bedbugs to leave his bed, and thy do so.

It teaches the essentially Jesus was so fully God that he was not human.

 

 

[GHansen]

"The Sabbath in the Great Schism of A.D. 1054" by R. L. Odom (andrews.edu)

[Gustave]

 

Quote

Gustave, You might want to review the section "Sabbath keeping Christians" before dismissing Sabbath keepers of early times as exclusively sectarians or heretics. 

 

I did review the articles section on "Sabbath in the New Testament" it & it was problematic for what it was asserting. The article cites Mark 6,2 - Luke 4, 16 & 31, Luke 6, 6 & Luke 13, 10.  Of course Jesus would be attending Synagogues on the Sabbath, He was after all a practicing Jew. The point here is this isn't "WORSHIP" - that took place at the Temple. 

Jesus went there to TEACH, exactly as the texts say He did. 

The word Synagogue is just a Greek translation of "beit k'nesset" which means "Jewish house of assembly"  & in Jesus' time they were used as schools, Jewish courts, communal meals, hostels, the collection and distribution of charity [on days OTHER than the Sabbath], communal prayer & political meetings. Synagogues DIDN'T become places of worship until after the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

So, the article is wrong when they repeatedly use "Sabbath worship" in connection with Synagogues. The Synagogue was essentially a members only clubhouse for Jews and those allowed by Jews to enter - it was like a community Grange Hall, Elks or Eagles club. 

Christian converts from Judaism would for sure frequent Synagogues because this was the communal "house of assembly" for Jews practicing Judaism. Doing a "collection or distribution" on the Sabbath day in a Synagogue would have been an outrageous scandal & Christians conducting actual WORSHIP (The Eucharist) would have been viewed as Blasphemous by even what devout Jews would call bad Jews. 

Jesus said that the Jews eventually would kick the Christians OUT OF THE SYNAGAGUES ( John 16,2 ). 

There is no "Commandment" in all of Scripture for attending Synagogue - its merely a Talmudic / Rabbinical Tradition similar to the Jewish holy day Chanukah which the New Testament attests that Jesus observed that honors celebrating the cleansing of the Temple after it had been defiled by the Greek / Syrian Villain Antiochus IV Epiphanes. 

Like I said earlier about connecting the dots - if a Synagogue is defined as an "assembly place for Jews" and worship pertaining to Judaism DIDN'T take place there until after the destruction of the Temple and absolutely Jew's practicing Judaism would never allow Christians to "WORSHIP" (offer the Eucharist there) and there was no collection or distribution of charity there on the Sabbath and Jesus said the Christians would be kicked out of the Synagogues its fairly easy to conclude that Hebrews 10, 25 is referring to another "ASSEMBLY PLACE"  that would allow the Eucharist to be celebrated and would allow a collection to be taken up (i.e. house Churches). 

If the New Testament "orders" Christian, on the 1st day of the week,  to have on themselves the gift offering so there will be no gathering when Paul arrived it stands to reason all the Christians in Galatia and Corinth were "assembling" at a house that was dedicated as an assembly place for Christians on the 1st day of the week.