Not a reference to a weekly worship service. RATHER -- It is a one off event.
Not a reference to ignoring or replacing the 7th day Sabbath and also not a reference to a week-day-1 dedicated day of worship.
Not a reference to a weekly service of any kind, It is a one-off gathering because Paul was about to leave on a journey
Not a reference to ignoring or replacing the 7th day Sabbath and also not a reference to a week-day-1 dedicated day of worship.
Not a reference to a weekly service of any kind,
IT is a not even a gathering, or worship service -- it talks about "each laying up by himself alone at home" at the first of each week - some money
Not a reference to ignoring the 7th day Sabbath and also not a reference to a week-day-1 dedicated day of worship.
No day of the week at all specified in Rev 1:10 unless you link it to Mark 2:28 "Christ LORD of the Sabbath" or you link it to Is 58:13 "Sabbath - the holy Day of the Lord".
On the contrary - all of my examples are "Sabbath after Sabbath worship services"
and not a single one of your examples is "week-day-1 after week-day-1 worship services"
how is this even a tiny bit confusing?
I've already told you the NT claims I shown of Sunday worship were anecdotal, yet it still has more support than you give... which is also anecdotal
Only if you ignore enough details in the text and spiritualize the chapter away to a sufficient distance from its subject matter.
I didn't say the account only had spiritual meaning but it would be irresponsible to ignore the spiritual meaning of the account. I have also ignored nothing in the account. There is not one word that I cross out, it all supports the spiritual depth.
Nope.
The 4th commandment has no ceremony at all in it -
Ex 20:
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
This is also true in Gen 2:1-3
Prescribing an action for the goal of remembering an event that repeats at the same time each week falls under the category of ceremony. I just googled "ceremony" the first definition is "a formal religious or public occasion, typically one celebrating a particular event or anniversary." You might argue that the sabbath was an informal ceremony which I would be fine with, but still a ceremony. I would say the context of the 4th is delivered to the heads of the household who then pass down the message to their son/daughter, male/female servant, and so on... based on the hierarchical structure evident in the commandment, it is given to the one at the top of hierarchy for that household. in this sense they become the officiants of Sabbath for those under their care, thus formalising the ceremony. But informal or formal, it's still a ceremony. I'm not sure why you would debate that point; it's just a matter of fact.
The self-conflicted nature of your statement is more than a little aparent.
"never speaks of Law or God's Law" -- when the text says "Sin IS transgression of the Law" -- "sin IS Lawlessness".
Your statement needs more work.
in the passage the greek word "nomos" (or law) is never mentioned. the word mentioned is "anomia" which is derived from a negated nomos. Negated nomos is "anomos" which can be translated as "without law" or "lawless" such as seen in 1 Cor 9:21. "anomia" is further nuanced and more like "lawlessness" or you could say "acts committed against law" but that statement is too meaty and limits the simplicity of the word. lawlessness best captures the nuances that may come up over the more specific "acts commits against law"
the verse has the word "to commit" (poieo). the verse more literally says "everyone who commits sin, also commit lawlessless" so the word "transgress" is not well fleshed out here and is more of a combination of "commit" plus the "a-" portion of "anomia" and the left over bits converted to "nomos" to support the reading of "transgressing against law". That translation is fine, and I'm not going to pick it apart but if we really want to develop theological concepts from it then we need to get deeper in the study.
I know "God's law" is often conflated with the 10 commandments so it's easy to add "transgressed against God's law" here to support this idea that we need to keep the 10 commandments. The word is speaking of broadly acts against law (ambiguous) and equating this with sin itself but its purpose is not to isolate the 10 commandments. "law" is not unpacked to this extent, NT reading, not to mention the strong brotherly love tone of the Johannine epistles, supports a reading of Christ's law over torah/10 commandments (in the specific sense) when it addresses lawlessness. Paul shows this connection of "God Commandmends" by comparing 1 Cor 7:19, Gal 5:6 and Gal 6:15, the result is Paul is actually capturing a new covenant concept through Christ's law, not an old covenant concept (through the 10) Christ's law is not in competition with torah (or the 10) but it is shown as a better way of lawful action that is introduced first by Christ and repeated by NT authors. Although "law" in this passage is ambiguous, if we are to use other NT authors as our guide, Christ's law is far more articulated and fleshed out than this unspoken 10 commandments that your superimposing over this verse.
Jesus did not charge any of his disciples with Sabbath breaking since they were not sinless.
This is also the case with Paul in Act 18:4 keeping the Sabbath "every Sabbath" - preaching the Gospel to both gentiles and Jews in the Synagogues.
Heb 10 makes it clear that animal sacrifices and offerings end with the death of Christ - yet the Ten remain as Paul reminds us in Eph 6:1-3
Eph 6:1-3 does not address the 10 commandments as you want them to. it addresses one commandment, and restates it in a NT context. NT authors don't comment on sabbath instruction, and more so their comments shift away from sabbath practice (like Col 2). Christ himself shows us sabbath practice by saying, "it is lawful to do good on the sabbath" (Mt 12:12) yet doesn't comment on any other sabbath practice. If we were to collect all sabbath teaching in the NT our net result would be very week in support of continued sabbath practice according to the letter. The 4th is not about gathering or traditional worship it is about resting as the worship, the gathering parts more inferred from other texts. because sabbath practice commented so little in the NT (and really nothing at all). To assume this means full support of the letter of the law is irresponsible or anecdotal at best. As you've said, aspects of law have without question ended as Heb 10 identifies. So does this not challenge readings of Matthew 5:17? Certainly not in the sense that Mat 5:17 is false but that it cannot support this idea that no law changes or ends when speaking of "fulfilled" when very clearly this is exactly what has happened with these specific examples. Since the 4th does not address moral behaviour why then is this so hard to view it with the same outcome? not it's spiritual value but it's physical adherence to the letter. But Christ shows us law is not about how many people we resisted murdering that we are judged on favourably, but rather the actions (or inactions) of the heart such as a call to love our neighbour. How much more is this with the Sabbath when I close my door and shut my blinds so that I may rest while hundreds around me are not able to, like being surrounding by bleating sheep trapped in pits (how dare they disturb our rest)
Gen 2:1-3 no salvation issue at all - is present at the founding the Sabbath "made for mankind" in Eden
Is 66:23 speaks of the new Earth -- having Sabbath keeping "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to worship.
Having rest in Christ every day was never contradictory to God's own Sabbath command to sinless man in Gen 2 and did not contradict the Sabbath teaching of Christ.
Christ in fact condemns the idea of trying bend His Words to attack God's Commandments in Matt 5.
are you saying there is no spiritual meaning to Sabbath? that seems a bit of an odd thing to say. why would motivate you to say something like this?
