We Pass the Bread and the Wine Just like in the Bible! But, why is forbidden to eat?
David_ Jay: They often rejected the entire world of academic seminaries as part of "Babylon the Great," leaving themselves with a theology that read the Bible literally.
The keyword "babylon" reminds of Alexander Hislops' book "The two babylons" 1853. or similar books in other language like "From Babylon to the catolic church" in german of the christian literature service in Germany, published 1997. http://www.clv-server.de/pdf/255377.pdf
Certainly it originated also in the 19 the centurys' atmosphere of the second great awaking in America, where everything related to the classic churches was attributed to Babylon.....like The Sunday, Easter.... And the biblestudents grew up within this non-academic atmosphere. In the community of many congregational chapels, adventits?, its certainly yet a classical book and available on internet.
Books full of trivial simplifications about the meaning of festivals. One matter is a pagan connection or origin, but the other matter is that pagan symbols mean nothing if one has the right attitude.
Even the name of God has pagan origin. The Israelites gave it a new meaning and dimension. Perhaps it was the preisraelite storm god or mountain/ vulcane god. Scientist found even out the the word JWH sounds like the noises of a vulcan.
Pizza Hut said, " It seems you've retained the superior judgmental attitude however."
That's right. I can spot stupid from 500 yards.
take as an example pizza hut, they pass the crust and let them eat it, they ain't stupid?
You can can make the bible support any point you want, take any side in any argument you want.
ITs Total Cacca
Nathan Natas 2 hours ago
Pizza Hut said, " It seems you've retained the superior judgmental attitude however."
That's right. I can spot stupid from 500 yards.
You must be a lot of fun at a party. Just curious...how many decades did you spend as a JW before you spotted a bit of stupidity in yourself and became such an expert on the topic?
Seems like it might be a good idea to be less harsh when referring to the questions asked by others who aren't as enlightened as you are. (Just sayin' )
In a previous post of yours you pasted a writeup about the history of the early church and that customs were attested to by early church fathers. My argument is that it was the wall of seperation between jew and gentile (which paul fought to break down) that occured during that time in the infant church when more people of the gentiles were coming into the church (in leadership roles) that the apostasy happened. So I would suspect that these early church fathers would support the "new way". Remember when moses went up the mountain it only took the israelites about forty days to lose the plot.
the early church met as often as they could but the scripture says that the church went to synagogue to "hear moses"...that is done on the sabbath which means they likely still kept the 7th day sabbath as the sanctified day of rest in addition to meeting other days.
I don't know that breaking bread automatically means passing the elements and not a fellowship meal as paul states that some would show up and eat and drink everything so that others would go away hungry.
Excellent artical about the timeline of early apostacy; who, what, when, why and how.
"You must be a lot of fun at a party. Just curious...how many decades did you spend as a JW before you spotted a bit of stupidity in yourself and became such an expert on the topic?"
What's a party?
I spent about 2 years (when I was 9 or 10) believing Mommy's religion before I began to recognize the smell of bullshit, but I _AM_ a bit slow and also a bit cautious (and rational) so I waited until I was in my mid twenties, when I was a pioneer and a Ministerial Servant, and I learned that the pedophile in the Middle Village congregation in Queens NY had to be protected so that Jehovah's name wouldn't be soiled.
THAT was like having a wad of bullshit placed directly into each of my nostrils, and I put a fork into myself and was DONE.
That's my CV, in brief.
My argument is that it was the wall of seperation between jew and gentile (which paul fought to break down) that occured during that time in the infant church when more people of the gentiles were coming into the church (in leadership roles) that the apostasy happened.
You mentioned the breaking down of the wall of separation between Jews and gentile as easy entry zone of a supposedly happened "apostasy".
However right as regards to the Sabbath:
"...Jews in the first century understood that God did not require Gentiles to keep the Sabbath. When the barriers between Jews and Gentiles were eliminated through Jesus’ death (Ephesians 2:13-16), the Sabbath was one of the barrier ordinances eliminated. It was a ritual law, not a timeless and eternal moral law. ...
...Paul tells us that the gentiles, even without the written law, had a law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). They could know by nature that honesty was proper. But in contrast, they could not know from nature that they should anoint the right thumb instead of the elbow. They could not know by nature that they were to avoid work every seventh day.
Quotes from: "Is the Sabbath a moral law or a ceremonial Law?"
Thus just Paul himself and just the breaking down of the barrier made it necessary not to load jewish burdens on gentiles. Likewise the Apostolic Council didnt mention the Sabbath as duty for Gentiles and Gentile christians.
According to the source below it was about 130 A.D. that jewish christians stopped celebration the Sabbath. But this didnot happen in this epoche as a replacement of Sunday to have a new day of rest, but it simple went out of practice. Christians worked on this day in the second century.
Maxwell: Many Christians were already honoring Sunday near the beginning of the second century…. Evidence is very strong…that many if not most Christians had given up the Sabbath as early as A.D. 130…. Just as Sunday observance came into practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second century.
But this was not a replacement for the Sabbath:
Sunday was observed only as a day for worship, not as a Sabbath on which to refrain from work…. Sunday was not at first celebrated as a ‘Sabbath.’… It was not observed in obedience to the fourth commandment…. Sunday was regarded by Christians generally not as a day of rest or holiness but as a day of joy.18
Sabbath and sunday in the Early Second Century
From a german source (googletranslation): https://bibelbund.de/2015/07/von-der-heiligung-des-sonntags/#fn10-3957
At first the Christians, as far as they came from Judaism, still held the Sabbath. At least until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans it can be seen that the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Israel have consistently adhered to the Jewish ceremonial law. One of the reasons for this assumption is that "we do not hear of any persecution from the beginning, because Christians did not follow the Sabbath."
James, the brother of Jesus, who had stood at the head of the congregation in Jerusalem until the destruction of Jerusalem, was given the epithet "the righteous" by the Jews of the following century, not least because of his legal severity and his zealous temple service. The observance of the Sabbath for the figure of Jewish life at that time was too strong and meaningful, as "that the oldest Christianity, in the same way, had distinguished the Jewish week in this way, as opposed to its other day. The Sabbath was a strong bond of communion, which linked it to the whole people, and by keeping the Sabbaths holy by the Jewish Christians of Palestine, they followed the example and instruction of Jesus, who was not in the role of a rebel, but of a sensible accomplisher Legal orders ".12
But at the same time, the celebration of the first day of the week as the 'Lord's Day' is formed. On the "Resurrection Day" they held their own meetings. The celebration of the 'Lord's Supper' was at the center. Since the resurrection took place on the day after the Sabbath (Mark 16: 1ff.), The Lord's Supper was also celebrated on this day.13 From the celebration of the Lord's Supper, the first day of the week may have been given its early Christian designation "Day of the Lord" (Rev. 1.10).
It is of decisive importance for the origin of Sunday that among the four points, which were ordinarily ordered on the so-called Apostolic Council, Apg 15, for the Gentile Christians, the salvation of the Sabbath is no more the same as the foundation of another holy day ( Acts 15:28). Paul is vehemently opposed to any attempt to persuade the Gentile-Christian communities to hold certain days (Gal 4: 8, Col. 2: 8ff.), For they represent for him a relapse into a life of works (cf Gal. .
Under the decisive influence of Paul crystallized in the communities of Kleinasiens, Greece and Macedonia clear traces of a worship celebration. Thus Paul proposes to the church in Corinth what has already proved its worth in the communities of Asia Minor to complete their promised collection of money for the impoverished congregation in Jerusalem on every first day of the week when they are already together (1Cor 16: 1f.). In Troas (Acts 20: 7ff.) We find the celebration of the Lord's Supper together with a preaching service. Further concrete indications of the form and content of worship meetings can be found in the introductory wording in the first corinthian letter: "... if you come together ..." (cf 1 Cor 11: 20ff, 14, 26ff.
Nowhere did the early church call the Sunday 'Christian Sabbath' or argue its celebration derived from the Sabbath.
When the Apostle John moved to Kleinasien around the year 70, he found the celebration of the Lord's Day there as given. Thus, in revelation, he speaks of it quite naturally (cf. Rev 1: 10, "I was on the Lord's day in the Spirit ..."). Nowhere did the early church call the Sunday 'Christian Sabbath' or write that its celebration derived from the Sabbath.
"All of the testimonies indicate that the separation from the Sabbath already began in the Jewish Christian community, albeit initially in a twist that the heathen Christian communities were never committed to the Sabbath (Acts 15) and that the celebration of the Lordsday was finally settled under occasional conflicts (Gal 4: 8ff, Col 2: 8ff.) And relapses (Letter of Ignatius to the Magnesians 9:13). "
I must say what regards me, i myself am researching this matter from time to time, but I always give up because i am confused.
I read much about Sabbath of Adventist, but i dont like the thought that a sevenday-rythm is a moral or universal principle.
this german information from a "voice of hope" obviouls adventistic, is called "the Sabbath Conspiracy" http://www.bibelstudien-institut.de/fileadmin/bibelstudien-institut.de/downloads/minibuecher/Minibuch_Nr_4_Sabbat_Verschwoerung.pdf
Already my short answer shows that it was not a conspiracy by the early first century church or later to give up the Sabbath but that it was based on the understanding that the breaking up of the wall to the Gentiles meant also consequently not to load unto them the Sabbath.
At the same time the christian practice to celebrate the first day of the week got common, (If this was already at the beginning everywhere a weekly Lordsupper on Sunday is another question or if this derived from the domenical Easterfestival and later got celebrated weekly) ..
Already the new testament passages show as we know that on the first day of the week they met and broke the bread. Acts 13,27 shows that the apostels visited the temple on Sabbath to comment the texts that were read and to preach Jesus Christ. In some places there was a brotherly partnership and both days were held. But very early both days were distinguished. This was primarly a reaction to the jewish christians who inclined to hold the Mosaic law. .....
This all happened long before anybody intended or thought of making of this first day and celebration of the resurrection a "sunday-rest"-day, however to impose the jewish sabbath-rest to the gentiles, that was perhaps a wish of jewish christians but certainly not of the whole church.
Justin (burn about 100 A.D) explained the reason why Christians ignored the Jewish laws in a dialog with the Jew Trypho. (an antijewish apology)
Dialog with Trypho
"We live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do…. An eternal and final law — namely, Christ — has been given to us…. He is the new law, and the new covenant…. The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you…. If there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God."
In Justin’s view, the Sabbath command was an admonition to morality, and Christians, by behaving morally on every day, were in perpetual obedience to the purpose of the Sabbath.
Justin repeatedly said that the patriarchs Abel, Enoch, Lot, Noah and Melchizedek, “though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God…. For if there was no need of circumcision before Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now.”23 Justin argued that, since Sabbaths and sacrifices and feasts began with Moses, then they ended with Christ, who was the new covenant.24
Not only do Gentiles not have to keep the Sabbath, Justin concluded that “the just men who are descended from Jacob” do not have too, either. Trypho asked, Could a Christian keep the Sabbath if he wished to? Justin knew of some Jewish Christians who kept the Sabbath and replied, Yes, as long as he doesn’t try to force other Christians to keep the law of Moses.
The dialogue is formal in the tradition of the Platonic dialogues. It is equally aimed at Jews, Christians, and Gentiles. Justin of the martyrs here reflects his experiences as a missionary who, on his travels, probably disputed with Jewish scholars. The dialogue traces such an argument during the time of the Bar-Kochba insurrection and the subsequent antichrist riots. The fact that Justinus has actually led the dialogue in Ephesus and has also been converted to Christianity can not be historically proven.
Of course it could be that this Justin the Martyr, who was a philosopher and lived after John died., was an apostate.