Saturday The True Day Of Worship?

hello guys,

this is a subject that is very crucial in our spiritual lives, in this generation of ours we were all born into knowing that sundayis the day of worship, but it is isn't

anyway sha, lets hear your views

  no I'm not

Perhaps it would help if people try and understand the Old Testament worship better before mirroring that against the backdrop of NT worship. What exactly did the OT worship entail?

And on what days should we not spend our time "doing spiritual things"?

Feeling uneasy already for a simple question?


6 days to toil and labour - and on which of those 6 days are we not to spend our time "doing spiritual things"?

yes saturday is the true day of worship
read your bibles is in there 

@4get_me


Are you saying that God is stupid? It must be since it was He who instituted the day for our good. Listen to what Jesus said about the sabbath.

Mark 2:27
"the sabbath was made for man, "

Now how in heaven's name can something be rigid if its made by Jesus Christ Himself? In fact the Lord Himself promised that if we keep His day holy He would make us ride upon high places and feed us with the heritage of Jacob our father. Listen as the bible speaks. Remember what Paul said in:

Galations 3:29
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ish. 58:13,14
13 If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: 14 Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isaiah the prophet brings that point over also:

Isaiah 56:6,7
6 Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; 7 Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

So part of the plan of God was that His chosen people back then would share the knowledge of the sabbath with the gentiles who accepted the way of the Lord. You see God is interested in all people. And that is why the same Jesus who soujourned in the wilderness with His people could have said in Mark 2:27 that He made the sabbath for all mankind, and not just the jews.

So my friend sabbath observance doesn't enslave anyone, but rather it brings a blessing on all those who obey the voice of the Lord.


There is absolutely no scripture that says we aught to keep Sunday. If that were the case how come after Christ died that His followers kept the sabbath in accordance with the commandments:

Luke 23:54-56
54 And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on. 55 And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. 56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.

So you said that in the first century christians kept Sunday. Lets see how true that statement is from scripture.

Acts 17:2.
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." 

Acts 13:13-15
13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. 14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.  15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

No where in the above passages do we see any attempt to introduce Sunday as the Lord's day. How come if it were so important?

Now look at this:

Acts 13:42-44
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.  44  And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

There is something I'd like to point out in this passage. The "who" in the 43rd verse could be either Paul and Barnabas, or the religious proselytes, but the point is an encouragement was made to continue in the grace of God. Nothing was hinted in any of these passages about a new day called the Lord's day. if it were all that important for christians to consider how come Paul didn't emphasise it's imortance?

Isn't it strange that the very person Himself Christ, who would likely have introduced the change of plan to His disciples didn't even mention such a plan? Instead this is what he said to them in anticipation of the AD70 destruction of the temple.

Matthew 24:20
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

Why would Christ show any concern for the sabbath if He had anticipated a change of day in order to reflect the new covenant. Wouldn't He have instructed the disciples to no longer keep the day after His death and resurrection? And especially some 40 years thereafter?

Lest you think of arguing that Paul and his company only spoke of the sabbath because they had to visit withn the synagogue. Listen to this account.

Acts 16:11-13
11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis; 12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days. 13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Here we see Paul on his missionary journey outside of the realms of jewish influence still demonstrating his custom of sabbath observance.


Yet you are willing to accuse christians of legalism when in truth and in fact we are only trying to show you the importance of being obedient to God.

In all fairness the burden is yours to prove that Sunday has become the new day on which christians celebrate the resurrection.

I dare you to start the proof.

@4get_me


Why not deal with them here since I am responding to you over here. I'd prefer and appreciate if you copy and paste the same response you posted elsewhere.


I never really had to quote those texts you mentioned, which incidentally are only apart of the 7 or 8 texts that mention anything about the first day of the week, because thats your onous to explain, not mine. I have put the cards on the table concerning my reasons why you're dead wrong about the sabbath being abolished and replaced by Sunday observance.

Howeevr for the sake of the board I will coment on the texts in question.

Acts 20:7-12

Before I begin let me lay down a principle about how the Jews and early jewish christians viewed the day in terms of when it started and finished. Its important for my explanation. 

The bible teaches that each day begins at sundown and ends the next sundown. (Genesis 1:15, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31); Leviticus 23:32) The dark part of the day naturally began the day. The sabbath for them began Friday night sundown and would end on what we call Saturday night. In fact using their reckoning, our Saturday night would have rally been their Sunday evening or the dark part of Sunday. The meeting recorded in ACts 20 was held on the dark part of Sunday, seeing that the dark part of a day begins the day, and what we call today as Saturday night.

Proof of that lies in this version of the New English bible whose opening line says:

Acts 20:7-12 NEB
"On the Saturday night in our assembly , "

Every indication points to a late night meeting by Paul which lasted till 12 midnight. Paul was on a farewell tour and knew he would not see these peopel again before his death (see verse 25). No wonder he preached so  long and normally no weekly service would have lasted so long in those days, anyway. Paul was ready to depart on the morrow.

So what about the breaking of bread you might ask. Was this any indication that that occassion was a special and normal customary gathering? Absolutely not, because the breaking of bread was never confined to a day for they broke bread every day (see Acts 2:6) With that being the case the breaking of bread has no "Lord's day" significance whatsoever. In fact there is no scriptural indication in this passage that the first day was the norm or customary gathering for early christians. Nor is there the remotest clue of a change from sabbath to the first day of the week.

1 Cor. 16:1,2

1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.  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.

is this what you're using to show the change?  , sorry but I find it funny how people see what isn't there. Anyway thee is no reference here about a customary gathering or church meeting. In fact the expression "lay by him in store" literally means form the Greek store at your house/home

In other words each christians was to save up something for the poor so that Paul woudn't waste time having to do all that when he passed through. They were written a letter from before telling them to store the stuff at home, and not at church as some would have us believe. These christiasn were sabbath keepers and that is why Paul suggested that they do some work on Sunday and make the necessary preparation. Its as simple as that. The raging famine that prevailed would no doubt have affected the poor brethren in Asia Minor. All bills and accounts were normally settled on a Sunday. Both the french and spanish bibles say the same thing about storing the stuff at home. In French it says:

" doit mettre de cote chez lui" which means "place by your side at home"

Thats the solid truth my friend. Sooner or later the inevetable will unfold.



 

Of course, I was.


It's not difficult and you could easily have done that.

source one

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

I understand your persuasions about Acts 17:2. But read it in its context, and you'll understand that Paul wasn't discoursing with or engaging Christians on the Sabbath or in the synagogues. Rather, his audience were the Jews, as the context bears out in verse 1 - "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews". It was with these Jews at Thessalonica that Paul engaged in such a persuasive manner to convince them that Jesus was the Christ. He would hardly need to do this to people who were already Christians and were convinced that Jesus was actually the Christ. You will find the result in verse 4 where it says: "And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."

So, it was with the Jews that the apostle reasoned with in order to convince them that Jesus is the Christ; which would clearly mean that the meeting was an evangelistic engagement and not a Christian gathering.

Reading the connecting verses in Isaiah 56:6-7 ~

"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

It would be clear that the passage was not revealing or detailing New Testament spirituality, but rather what obtained under the dispensation of the Law. This is clear by mention of "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices" to be accepted upon the LORD's "altar". When you turn over to the NT, you'll find that the burnt offerings and sacrifices were confirmed to be under the economy of the OT, and were not a continuum for the NT -

(a) (Heb. 10:1, 5).
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. . . Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

(b) (Heb. 10:6-9)
"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Infact, the last verse is one of the reasons why I'm persuaded that the Mosaic Law does not hold for the NT Christian - God has taken it away in order to establish the new covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ - "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2:14). So, the covenant, burnt offerings and sacrifices we read of in Isaiah 56:6 are well suited to the Old Testament economy; and Isaiah could not have been detailing the new covenant. This again confirms that Isaiah's mention of the Sabbath was not to be applied to NT Christians, otherwise we would have had to apply the burnt offerings and sacrifices he spoke about in those verses.

As a rule, OT prophets were not given to understand NT details -

Eph. 3:3-5 --
"How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

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

Now in Matt. 5:17 when Christ said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil", He was not thereby asking that Christians should live by the Law. Rather, He testified that He came to 'fulfil' them, in the sense that He would bring about the actual content of the Law, especially in reference to the prophetic nature of the Law in reference to Himself. This is why after His resurrection, He explained the import of what He meant in the fulifilling of the Law and the prophets -

"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. (Luke 24:44).

His death and resurrection effectively fulfilled the Law, the prophets and the psalms - that is why the inspired writer of Hebrews argued from the same OT that God would take away the Law of the Old Covenant in order to establish the New Covenant in His Son - the One who came to do the Father's will and pleasure -

Heb 10:8-10
"Above when he said (that is, Jesus Christ prophetically declared this statement) Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Notice that this declaration we find in Hebrews 10 is actually a quote from Psalm 40:6-8, which clearly point to the fact that Christ was prophetically speaking there, and had foreseen that God had not eternal satisfaction in the sacrifices and burnt offerings of the OT, such as Isaiah mentioned.

So, the Lord Jesus Christ actually fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, but not in a way as to ask Christians to revert to the OT to keep the Mosaic Law and the Sabbath. The reality of what pleases God is to be found in Jesus Christ, as the inspired apostle argued with great clarity in Col. 2:16-17.

Blessings.
¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤




source two

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤


lordimpaq,     

Okay, I'm sorry - I shouldn't have been too forward with the 'lollypop' interjection. It's true that up until the resurrection, the disciples clearly observed the sabbath, as infact we read in Luke 23:55-56 -

"And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment."

Following that, after the church had been established, we read in Acts that Paul and his companions were accustomed to preaching and engaging the Jews on the sabbath in order to point them to Christ:

"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. . . And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. . . And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Act 13:14, 42, 44).

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." (Act 16:13).

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Act 17:2).

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." (Act 18:4-5).

The last reference shows that all the meetings and engagements Paul and his companions had on the sabbaths were not Christian gatherings for NT worship - they were more like evangelistic opportunities for him as occasion to persuade both Jews and Greeks that Jesus was the Christ. So, it would not be correct to draw the conclusion that Christians were still observing the Sabbath as stipulated in the OT for the Jews. That is why under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he cautioned that the Sabbath was only a shadow of things which find their reality and subtance in Christ, and we should not be judged on the basis of keeping the sabbath and a few other things in just the manner stipulated for the Jews (Col. 2:16-17).

To further strengthen this persuasion, please note that only the Jews were answerable to the Law - the Gentiles were not held accountable to the stipulations of the Law: "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God" (Rom 2:17). When you carefully follow the sequence of this very interesting discussion in Romans, you can't miss the fact that Christians are not Jews, and therefore you cannot apply a Jewish Law to non-Jews in the Body of Christ. Here's the sequence -

First Sequence:

"Now we know that ^awhat things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law (that is, the Jews): that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. ^bTherefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now ^cthe righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference . . . Therefore we conclude that ^da man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom 3:19-22, 28)

Follow the sequence of the argument of the inspired apostle: the Law was never given to Gentiles (that is, non-Jews) to observe; and to hold Gentiles accountable to the Law is to subvert the grace provided in Christ. The Law was given only to the Jews: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom 9:4).
--------------------------------------------------------

For Christians who are in the Body of Christ, the scripture says:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Rom 6:14). . . and that is because, "now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom 7:6). You should realise that in the Body of Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (girl 3:28). And that being so, we are not held accountable under the Law - For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4). This is the reason why the Bible exhorts that we can't be judged "in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).

So, as you say, no one has the power to change God's authority. The question is, can anyone as such change God's authority of the New Testament? What we both need is a careful, time-spent, prayerful study of God's Word - and then the understanding becomes clear in the economy of His covenants, and we find there are no ambiguities there.

Blessings.


¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

You still haven't showed from any of the texts in Acts that the apostle Paul introduced a new day. The same texts in the book of Acta are shared by us to prove a point, but when you stop to look at those texts and what they are saying, anyone can pick a message of what they think the text is saying.

I have no problem with that because more than one messages or points can be had from one text, but to tell me that Paul only mentioned the sabbath because he went in unto the Jews is pointless. That in itself doesn't say that Paul wasn't a sabbath keeper. How do you expain this text:

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." (Act 16:13).

Clearly there was no Jewish synagogue around, and Paul resorted to pray at a river on the sabbath.

In light of this development, I think we should all join hands and pray for Bobbyaf. I mean, that is a big and offensive thing to say or think or type. In the process of trying to drive home his point, he has committed a big no-no.

What do y'all think? Babyosisi, Malik, 4get_me, lordimpaq, syrup, GL, TayoD and all others. I think he needs the spirit of patience.

Bobbyaf, here is my prayer, I pray that you'll be humble enough to want to learn from others and above all, may His grace be with you.

If i worship God on Sunday He Hears me, if I worship Him on Saturday He's There, so what does it matter?

@ kenshin


Thats true my brother, but the issue is a much larger one. I don't think anyone is saying that God doesn't hear people who gather both on Sundays or the sabbath.

What the thread seeks to prove, I assume, is whether the bible as said by some, teaches that Sunday is now the Lord's day which is a reflection of the New Covenant.

Moves were made by some to argue that the seventh-day sabbath from creation, and which has been embedded in the 10 commandments and given to Moses, is no longer applicable to us as christians. It is argued that the same seventh-day sabbath was apart of the Mosaic laws, and hence was nailed to the cross. This is where I disagree.

My argument continues to be the opposite, based on certain unchanging principles found in the word of God. I have attempted to make a distinction between God's eternal law of 10 commandments, and the ceremonial laws that were written by Moses, and which were meant to be temporary.

It is seemingly logical to those who oppose my argument to think that if the sabbath was abolished then Sunday was now the new day for NT christians. Unfortunately, for my friends, they have not been able to find any scripture that clearly shows an authority for such a change by Christ or His disciples. 

Their only approach is to downplay the 10 commandments law by misreading Paul's writings. Of course I am not saying that Paul's writings are all that easy to understand anyway, but until a christian prayerfully studies he cannot percieve the things of God. This calls for fasting and prayer.

If you are prepared and willing you can check out this website called:

www.amazingfacts.org

You can either browse through the storacle lessons or study guides.

If you choose not to thats ok, but

Shalom.

@Bhola


I appreciate the jesture, but trust me you'd be praying for the wrong reason. Pray for me yes because everyone over here needs prayer, but if your prayer is going to be based on what you thought I did that was so evil then forget it. Please pray that the good Lord will give you a spirit of discernment to see prejudice and provocation commited by your friends, Ok? They are the ones you need to pray for with their spirit of judgemental attitude.


@ Baricade

I didn't say God is stupid Baricade, and I certainly didn't mean it to come out the way you guys are thinking. First I asked a question and followed up stating that it must be, based on what I thought to be mis-information being said about God's word, and obviously since it is God's words he is using to prove a point. In other words if God says something in one section of the bible that is an accepted truth, and comes again somewhere else to say the opposite, based on someone's misunderstanding, then the person presenting the untruth is actually making out God to be stupid. My intent was that the person debating me made God look stupid, by mis-representing God.

How can anyone read the context of the argument and come up with a silly conclusion that Bobby said that God is stupid and He must be, and how evil Bobby's remarks must have been? I find the whole thing so hilarious the way you guys carry on. Wha are you trying to prove?

Why didn't you guys who are casting aspersions take it from a different angle and ask me to explain such a sarcastic expression? Instead you guys have ganged up against this Nairaland newly-crowned enemy with every intention to embarrass by making me look as if I am the antagonist.

Did you think that by creating alarm that that was the Christ-like approach to take?

All I am asking is that we move on and let bygones be bygones. Don't allow the devil to win another battle.

in an effort to justify bible truth,

someone ends up sayin God is stupid,

_shame, 

and when criticised about the statements made

he ends up defending his wrong with good.

_{more shame},