Breaking bread on Sunday?

Breaking bread on Sunday?

Q. It says in Acts 20.7 that Paul and the disciples came to break bread on the first day of the week, which my KJV Study Bible says is a Sunday. In fact, the Study Bible says the New Testament churches had their primary services on Sunday. But, in the very next sentence the notes say that Paul "consistently" preached on the Jewish Sabbath "because that was the day the Jews would gather in the synagogues." So which is it, Saturday or Sunday? This is very confusing to a young believer. A .This is another verse that has been mishandled by people who do not know the Scriptures and they twist the meaning to fit their false doctrines. When you look up "first day of the week" in Greek it means literally "on one of the Sabbaths." Paul was meeting with these believers on a Sabbath day, so that rules out the false premise that this was a Sunday. It was a Saturday and he was having a Sabbath meal with them, which was very customary. It says he was talking with them and planned on leaving the next day, which was a Sunday. It doesn't say he was planning on having a "church" service, so that can be ruled out. He was leaving them on a Sunday, not having church. But, as he was teaching them he kept going till midnight Saturday night. In v 8 it says "there were many candles (or lamps) in the room. This was a Havdalah service. Havdalah means "separation" and it separates the Sabbath from the rest of the week.

This ceremony is 2500 years old and is seen being done in our passage, and this was done on a Sabbath as the sun set, ending the Sabbath. There are certain prayers said and a large candle is extinguished in wine, spices are passed around and the aroma fills the room. As the large lapidot candle is extinguished, smaller candles are lit by those present and that is why Acts 20.8 it says there were many candles, or lamps, in the room. This service is very symbolic of the Messiah and anyone who follows the Torah knows exactly what is going on. Far from being evidence of a "Sunday" service, it is proof that they were keeping the Sabbath and ending it in a very customary fashion.

You said your KJV Study Bible notes said that Paul preached on the "Jewish" Sabbath, but there is no such thing as a Jewish Sabbath. It is G-d's Sabbath, His day and that's why they call it "the L-rd's day." The Jews didn't come up with these laws, G-d did and they are His laws and His commandments (Lev 23.1-4, ISA 58.13). Paul went to the synagogues because that is where he was supposed to be on the Sabbath, and that is where believers in Yeshua were sent, including Gentiles, to hear Moses
(Torah) being taught (Acts 15.19-21). This verse, when understood, is just another one that shows that the believers of the 1st century continued to keep the Sabbath and this was not a Sunday service. The doctrine that Sunday is now the L-rd's day and the Sabbath was created by man, and any reasonable research on the subject will tell you that. You can't change a commandment of G-d, but apostate Christianity did and that lie has been perpetuated through the centuries. But once you know the L-rd and His Word, these false doctrines can easily be spotted and refuted. So, in conclusion, Acts 20.7-8 is a Sabbath day and Paul was teaching, he shared a Sabbath meal with his friends and had a traditional Havdalah service before departing sometime early Sunday morning after teaching past midnight.

Biblical Holidays 2006-07

First Unleavened Bread: April 14, 2006
Seventh Unleavened Bread: April 20, 2006

Shavuot: June 4, 2006
Yom Teruah (Day of Shouting): Sept. 25, 2006

Yom Kippurim (Day of Atonement): Oct. 4, 2006
First Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles): Oct. 9, 2006

Shemini Azteret (Last Great Day): Oct. 16, 2006
Days of Purim: March 4-5, 2007

What is Scripture, what is not?

Q. There are many books that people claim to be “scripture”. How do we know what is scripture and what is not, which books are “good” and which are “bad?”

A. The Bible isn’t really one book, but a collection of books written over 1500 years. The process of deciding on what is scripture and what isn’t is called “canonization” which means to measure according to a strict standard. This didn’t happen all at one time. What Christians call the “old” testament is called the Tanak. It consists of the Torah (first 5 books of Moses), the Neviim (prophets) and the Ketuvim (writings). The first letters of Torah, Neviim and Ketivim is TNK and that is where Tanak comes from. This was the canon of scripture at the time of Yeshua and accepted by Him. So, there is no problem with those books so you can be assured they are from the L-rd. This was a process also, and there were other books in this canon, but were trimmed down by Ezra around 450 BCE.

The process of canonizing the “new” testament took about 400 years. Paul’s letters were compiled first along with the 4 gospels and the other letters added last. Acts and Revelation were the last 2 books to be accepted. Part of the criteria to measure what books met the standard or not was that a book had to be attributed to an Apostle or someone closely associated with one. The book itself must have an inner consistency with know scripture and not violate its context and be in line with doctrinal foundations already known and accepted. These books have been translated into different languages and that’s where things get a little hazy.

Meanings and intent can be lost when words are translated from one language to another. Every translation from the Hebrew and Greek has problems so it is best to study these books using lexicons, knowing the history and the culture of the time. I can give hundreds of examples of translation problems from any Bible, so the problem isn’t so much the books contained in our Bibles, but how they are translated. It is best to have these language tools available and to know how to work in them.

Q. There is a book that has been quoted by some that the pope right after the current pope will be evil. What is the name of this book?

A. This book is called “The prophecies of St. Malachy” and it supposedly lists the papal history from pope #167 onward and things associated with each pope. I wouldn’t give it much thought and it can be interpreted many ways, like the prophecies of Nostradamus. Most experts on this think it is a Jesuit forgery of the 1600’s. I don’t waste any time on these things, I have a more sure word of prophecy by true prophets of G-d to master before I am concerned about papal history. I wouldn’t waste any time on it.