Can somebody help clear up my ignorance, please?

[GB]

I should start off by saying that I'm Jewish, and we recognise 613
commandments within the Old Testament.

Can I ask very roughly how many of those Christians adhere to, or how
Christians decide which ones to keep and which ones to ignore, please?

I do appreciate that may be quite a diversity of opinion on this within
the Church, and my question may be really extraordinarily naive.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/02/2023 17:26, GB wrote:

> I should start off by saying that I'm Jewish, and we recognise 613
> commandments within the Old Testament.

Welcome.

> Can I ask very roughly how many of those Christians adhere to, or how
> Christians decide which ones to keep and which ones to ignore, please?

The Church of England's "39 Articles of Religion" sets out what I
believe to be a fairly standard Christian position.

"The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and
New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is
the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore
those are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only
for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as
touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil
precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth;
yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the
obedience of the commandments which are called moral." Article 7

In other words, Christians recognise three categories into which all the
613 laws fall. There are those which have to do with religion (such as
sacrifices and temple ritual), there are those which have to do with
civil government (penalties for theft or murder) and there are the Moral
Laws, a phrase which is more or less a synonym for the Ten Commandments
of Exodus 20.

In all Church of England churches it is a requirement for the Ten
Commandments to be displayed somewhere in the church, usually carved in
stone at the front of the building. a practical carrying out of Article
Seven.

> I do appreciate that may be quite a diversity of opinion on this within
> the Church, and my question may be really extraordinarily naive.

Ever since Seventh-day Baptists and others began to point out that if
you are going to observe a Sabbath, you should observe Saturday, many
Christians have tried to escape that obligation by claiming that
Christians do not have to keep any laws. This is not a tenable position
and such people tie themselves in knots trying to argue that you don't
have to keep any laws but you still shouldn't commit adultery.

Personally I recognise three categories of law which have been in
existence since Creation (or since sin, seeing as law was not necessary
before sin) and which will continue to the end of time.

Moral Law (Ten Commandments)
During the time of Israel's statehood the Civil Law was added, laying
out the penalties for those who broke the Moral Law.

Religious Law (sacrifices)
During the time of Israel's statehood the Temple Law was added,
prescribing the rituals that were to attend sacrifices in the temple.

Health Law (clean and unclean animals)
During the time etc. Public Health Law was added, such as the
instruction on how human waste was to be treated or infectious diseases
controlled.

Moral, Religious and Health laws continue in the Christian Era. Morality
was not changed by Jesus' life or teaching. If something was unhealthy
in the past it remains unhealthy (Jesus' death did not cleanse germs!)
However Religious Law was changed in that Christians believe that Jesus'
death was what the old sacrifices pointed to. Instead of killing sheep
and goats to point forward to the death of the coming Messiah, we use
bread and wine to commemorate the death - and resurrection - of the
Messiah Who has come.

The additional laws ceased to be obligatory when Israel ceased to be a
state in AD 70.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/02/2023 17:26, GB wrote:
>
>> I should start off by saying that I'm Jewish, and we recognise 613
>> commandments within the Old Testament.

snip

>
>> I do appreciate that may be quite a diversity of opinion on this
>> within the Church, and my question may be really extraordinarily naive.

Hello, and welcome. Acts 15 defines which commandments Christians
should still adhere to.

> Ever since Seventh-day Baptists and others began to point out that if
> you are going to observe a Sabbath, you should observe Saturday, many
> Christians have tried to escape that obligation by claiming that
> Christians do not have to keep any laws. This is not a tenable position
> and such people tie themselves in knots trying to argue that you don't
> have to keep any laws but you still shouldn't commit adultery.

Adultery is covered by Acts 15

> Personally I recognise three categories of law which have been in
> existence since Creation (or since sin, seeing as law was not necessary
> before sin) and which will continue to the end of time.
>
> Moral Law (Ten Commandments)
> During the time of Israel's statehood the Civil Law was added, laying
> out the penalties for those who broke the Moral Law.
>
> Religious Law (sacrifices)
> During the time of Israel's statehood the Temple Law was added,
> prescribing the rituals that were to attend sacrifices in the temple.
>
> Health Law (clean and unclean animals)
> During the time etc. Public Health Law was added, such as the
> instruction on how human waste was to be treated or infectious diseases
> controlled.
>
> Moral, Religious and Health laws continue in the Christian Era. Morality
> was not changed by Jesus' life or teaching. If something was unhealthy
> in the past it remains unhealthy (Jesus' death did not cleanse germs!)
> However Religious Law was changed in that Christians believe that Jesus'
> death was what the old sacrifices pointed to. Instead of killing sheep
> and goats to point forward to the death of the coming Messiah, we use
> bread and wine to commemorate the death - and resurrection - of the
> Messiah Who has come.

So despite Acts 15 laying out what Christians should avoid, and you
choosing to accept additional parts of the Law, do you not agree with
Paul who said if you follow one law, you have to follow them all (613
that is)?

[Kendall K. Down]

On 24/02/2023 20:53, John wrote:

> Hello, and welcome.  Acts 15 defines which commandments Christians
> should still adhere to.

It is arguable that Acts 15 only applies to gentiles.

> Adultery is covered by Acts 15

Actually, no. Only fornication is mentioned in Acts 15.

I would further point out that murder, disobedience to parents, theft
and blasphemy are not mentioned in Acts 15. Do you wish to argue that
therefore they are allowed to Christians?

(Note to the original poster: do you see what I meant by saying that
people tie themselves in knots? I don't know whether you have a
Christian Bible; if not, you can easily access one at websites such as
www.biblegateway.com You might be interested to read Acts 15 to
understand the context of the decision taken at what is called "the
council of Jerusalem".)

> So despite Acts 15 laying out what Christians should avoid, and you
> choosing to accept additional parts of the Law, do you not agree with
> Paul who said if you follow one law, you have to follow them all (613
> that is)?

So you really do believe that Christians are free to blaspheme and
commit murder?

Remember, by your own rather foolish "logic", as soon as you agree that
Christians are not allowed to commit murder, you become liable to all 613.

[John]

Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 24/02/2023 20:53, John wrote:
>
>> Hello, and welcome.  Acts 15 defines which commandments Christians
>> should still adhere to.
>
> It is arguable that Acts 15 only applies to gentiles.
>
>> Adultery is covered by Acts 15
>
> Actually, no. Only fornication is mentioned in Acts 15.

You are correct, I just realised that when responding to Acts 15 thread.

>
> I would further point out that murder, disobedience to parents, theft
> and blasphemy are not mentioned in Acts 15. Do you wish to argue that
> therefore they are allowed to Christians?

Romans 2 v 14-16 and Collosians 2 v 20-22. The Holy Spirit will guide a
Christian seeking to follow God's Will. I should point out that I'm no
longer a Christian but I still believe in most Christian values. To me,
Christian morality is far more important than choosing the right day to
rest.

> (Note to the original poster: do you see what I meant by saying that
> people tie themselves in knots? I don't know whether you have a
> Christian Bible; if not, you can easily access one at websites such as
> www.biblegateway.com You might be interested to read Acts 15 to
> understand the context of the decision taken at what is called "the
> council of Jerusalem".)
>
>> So despite Acts 15 laying out what Christians should avoid, and you
>> choosing to accept additional parts of the Law, do you not agree with
>> Paul who said if you follow one law, you have to follow them all (613
>> that is)?
>
> So you really do believe that Christians are free to blaspheme and
> commit murder?
>
> Remember, by your own rather foolish "logic", as soon as you agree that
> Christians are not allowed to commit murder, you become liable to all 613.

It's the motive that counts. Do you avoid coveting the sexy neighbour
next door because it's one of the 10 commandments, or because as a
Christian you believe that would be sinful. To me the same applies to
the 4th commandment, do you obey it because it's one of the 10
commandments, and the church you used to be a part of insisted on it, or
because God instilled in your heart that he desired. If you're honest
you'd say the former for the Sabbath certainly.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 25/02/2023 16:11, John wrote:

> Romans 2 v 14-16 and Collosians 2 v 20-22.

Ah, so you are hastily climbing down from your position that Acts 15 is
the sum total of Christian duty.

I agree with you, of course, and have written a piece about my
understanding of Acts 15 in a separate thread. It is somewhat annoying
when people come up with facile and untrue arguments in which, upon
reflection, even they don't believe.

> It's the motive that counts.  Do you avoid coveting the sexy neighbour
> next door because it's one of the 10 commandments, or because as a
> Christian you believe that would be sinful. To me the same applies to
> the 4th commandment, do you obey it because it's one of the 10
> commandments, and the church you used to be a part of insisted on it, or
> because God instilled in your heart that he desired. If you're honest
> you'd say the former for the Sabbath certainly.

I agree that motive is important and have elsewhere stated that the only
acceptable motive is love for God.

Nevertheless having the written law is a useful prophylactic against the
human tendency to rationalise what we want to do. I may be attracted to
the neighbour (or rather, to his wife); I may be able to rationalise
that our circumstances justify or allow a spot of adultery; but against
that stands the iron gate of the law: Thou shalt not.

I'm not sure about the Sabbath. I hope I would find the arguments for it
of sufficient strength that I would keep it in some way - perhaps, like
Mike, worshipping in church on Sunday but endeavouring to keep Saturday
as a day of rest. As I can't undo my childhood, I agree that we shall
never know.

[GB]

Can I say thank you very much indeed to all those who answered my question.

I was very intrigued by the Council of Jerusalem, where pretty basic
decisions were made about the faith, which I had naively thought had
been made by Jesus during his lifetime (on Earth).

Acts 15 provides very limited guidance: "You are to abstain from food
sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and
from sexual immorality." There's no mention there of the sabbath, for
example.

From a Jewish standpoint, it is not really possible to say that any one
of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) is more important than another. They
are all God's will.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 26/02/2023 16:02, GB wrote:

> Can I say thank you very much indeed to all those who answered my question.

Thanks for returning and continuing the discussion. I was beginning to
wonder whether you were a "hit'n'run' poster.

> I was very intrigued by the Council of Jerusalem, where pretty basic
> decisions were made about the faith, which I had naively thought had
> been made by Jesus during his lifetime (on Earth).

It can be useful to read the literature of other religions.

> Acts 15 provides very limited guidance: "You are to abstain from food
> sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and
> from sexual immorality."  There's no mention there of the sabbath, for
> example.

Or, as I pointed out to another poster, of murder or theft or blasphemy.
The basic question seems to have been, "What must gentiles do so that
observant Jews can fellowship with them, enter their houses, eat with
them, with a clear conscience?"

If you read the first two chapters of Galatians you get a bit more
information and background. You might also find Acts 10 and 11 relevant,
particularly as Peter refers to the incident in what he says in Acts 15.

> From a Jewish standpoint, it is not really possible to say that any one
> of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) is more important than another. They
> are all God's will.

I agree with you. However changed circumstances can result in changes to
God's will. For example, no one was allowed to kill an animal for food
unless they brought it to the tabernacle. However when the Israelites
entered Canaan and were now scattered over a wide area, that was no
longer possible and God varied the command by saying that from then on
killing a goat was the same as killing a wild dear.

Christians believed that the death of Jesus was another such change in
circumstances. They also believed that the guidance of the Holy Spirit
provided the Divine authorisation for what they felt led to do.

I can understand that you would not agree with either of those beliefs,
but you should not go away thinking that the early Christians rather
cavalierly discarded or altered mizvaot on a whim.

[Madhu]

* GB <ttfvr0$2v2ko$1 @dont-email.me> :
Wrote on Sun, 26 Feb 2023 16:02:41 +0000:

> Acts 15 provides very limited guidance: "You are to abstain from food
> sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals
> and from sexual immorality." There's no mention there of the sabbath,
> for example.

I believe the council judgment is a restatement the Noachide (rather
than Moses) laws : The council ended up endorsing the "traditional"[1]
Jewish understanding of the behaviour that God intended for the
gentiles.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 03:04, Madhu wrote:

> I believe the council judgment is a restatement the Noachide (rather
> than Moses) laws : The council ended up endorsing the "traditional"[1]
> Jewish understanding of the behaviour that God intended for the
> gentiles.

That is a good point, though I think that the prohibitions on both meat
offered to idols and on fornication go beyond the Noachide requirements?

[Mike Davis]

On 26/02/2023 16:02, GB wrote:

> Can I say thank you very much indeed to all those who answered my question.

Sorry, I wasn't available to respond to your original question, but I'll
add a few points now.

The Christian faith (as you are aware) is a response to the One God who
first revealed Himself to the Jews and, in Jesus, revealed Himself to
all peoples.

The key difference is that the Holy Spirit* guides the hearts and minds
of Christians and in so doing lays down a stricter path than ritual laws
demand while effectively removing laws (in spite of all the arguments
you see on this - and other - groups!). Hence we see Jesus saying:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not
murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell
you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to
judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is
answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in
danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:21-22)

(And, yes, I am aware that many of the great Jewish teachers also made
similar statements)

> I was very intrigued by the Council of Jerusalem, where pretty basic
> decisions were made about the faith, which I had naively thought had
> been made by Jesus during his lifetime (on Earth).

The Council of Jerusalem was called to resolve a problem as the
Christian Faith expanded into pagan (ie non-Jewish) cultures, as to how
much of the Jewish traditions should be incorporated into this 'new'
religion. Notably it was about male circumcision, and so the different
leaders came together to thrash out the issues.

>
> Acts 15 provides very limited guidance: "You are to abstain from food
> sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and
> from sexual immorality."  There's no mention there of the sabbath, for
> example.

You are right about the brevity of this, it is about rules, and the main
problem was to keep the freedom of following Jesus rather than being
obsessed by rules.

Incidentally, the Sabbath and Lord's day were both acknowledged, and it
became the general approach to worship God especially on the First day
of the week because that celebrated the day Jesus had risen from the
dead and so released us from the punishment due to our sins. Some
Christian sects, as you may know - such as the one in which Kendall is a
minister - believe in continuing to worship on the Sabbath.

>
> From a Jewish standpoint, it is not really possible to say that any one
> of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) is more important than another. They
> are all God's will.

Understood. But there is an awesome freedom in following Jesus as
closely as possible and a terrific responsibility, too. Most people
would p[refer to 'know all the rules' then they don't have to think for
themselves.

Finally, I'm delighted to say that in recent years - the Christian
Church has at last formally acknowledged that the Jewish faithful are
our brothers and sisters in Faith, and the Roman Catholic Church has
apologised for the attitudes that have - over the centuries - led to the
persecution of Jews.

Blessings

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 12:41, Mike Davis wrote:

> The key difference is that the Holy Spirit* guides the hearts and minds
> of Christians and in so doing lays down a stricter path than ritual laws
> demand while effectively removing laws

I presume the asterisk indicates that Mike was going to make a footnote
but forgot.

The problem with that statement, Mike, is that the Holy Spirit was also
at work in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God inspired the prophets,
the Spirit of God led men to repentance (eg. David and the penitential
psalms), the Spirit of God guided men in other matters as well (for
example, David's claim to have received the blueprint for the temple
from God.)

It was the Spirit of God which led the prophets to exclaim that showing
mercy to the poor was better than offering animal sacrifices - which I
think you will agree was a thoroughly Christian attitude!

> Incidentally, the Sabbath and Lord's day were both acknowledged, and it
> became the general approach to worship God especially on the First day
> of the week because that celebrated the day Jesus had risen from the
> dead and so released us from the punishment due to our sins.

One early Christian writer mentioned that Christians celebrated a
before-dawn ritual in honour of the resurrection, after which they went
about their usual work. Church historians as late as the 460s AD confirm
that the majority of Christians observed the Sabbath.

> Understood. But there is an awesome freedom in following Jesus as
> closely as possible and a terrific responsibility, too. Most people
> would p[refer to 'know all the rules' then they don't have to think for
> themselves.

He he!

> Finally, I'm delighted to say that in recent years - the Christian
> Church has at last formally acknowledged that the Jewish faithful are
> our brothers and sisters in Faith, and the Roman Catholic Church has
> apologised for the attitudes that have - over the centuries - led to the
> persecution of Jews.

Amen. I would, however, point out that the faithful of any religion are
our brothers and sisters. They may be ignorant and misguided, but their
sincere love for God makes them sons and daughters of God.

[Mike Davis]

On 27/02/2023 20:58, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 12:41, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> The key difference is that the Holy Spirit* guides the hearts and
>> minds of Christians and in so doing lays down a stricter path than
>> ritual laws demand while effectively removing laws
>
> I presume the asterisk indicates that Mike was going to make a footnote
> but forgot.

Probably! ;0-)

>
> The problem with that statement, Mike, is that the Holy Spirit was also
> at work in the Old Testament. The Spirit of God inspired the prophets,
> the Spirit of God led men to repentance (eg. David and the penitential
> psalms), the Spirit of God guided men in other matters as well (for
> example, David's claim to have received the blueprint for the temple
> from God.)

Of course.

>
> It was the Spirit of God which led the prophets to exclaim that showing
> mercy to the poor was better than offering animal sacrifices - which I
> think you will agree was a thoroughly Christian attitude!

Indeed!

>
>> Incidentally, the Sabbath and Lord's day were both acknowledged, and
>> it became the general approach to worship God especially on the First
>> day of the week because that celebrated the day Jesus had risen from
>> the dead and so released us from the punishment due to our sins.
>
> One early Christian writer mentioned that Christians celebrated a
> before-dawn ritual in honour of the resurrection, after which they went
> about their usual work. Church historians as late as the 460s AD confirm
> that the majority of Christians observed the Sabbath.

'Majority' may be true in specific areas, but, frankly, I don't think we
have enough evidence to argue either way what the majority practise was.

>> Understood. But there is an awesome freedom in following Jesus as
>> closely as possible and a terrific responsibility, too. Most people
>> would p[refer to 'know all the rules' then they don't have to think
>> for themselves.
>
> He he!
>
>> Finally, I'm delighted to say that in recent years - the Christian
>> Church has at last formally acknowledged that the Jewish faithful are
>> our brothers and sisters in Faith, and the Roman Catholic Church has
>> apologised for the attitudes that have - over the centuries - led to
>> the persecution of Jews.
>
> Amen. I would, however, point out that the faithful of any religion are
> our brothers and sisters. They may be ignorant and misguided, but their
> sincere love for God makes them sons and daughters of God.

I might debate that with you another time, but I do accept that the
mono-theistic religions are seeking the One God.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 22:42, Mike Davis wrote:

> 'Majority' may be true in specific areas, but, frankly, I don't think we
> have enough evidence to argue either way what the majority practise was.

You have two historians stating that in their contemporary world - that
is, they are not reporting what was in their past, about which we might
reasonably conclude they could be mistaken - "all the churches in all
the world" keep the Sabbath.

Against their word what do you have? Where is your evidence that they
were wrong?

> I might debate that with you another time, but I do accept that the
> mono-theistic religions are seeking the One God.

Paul's statement in Acts 17:26, 27 was not directed to monotheists.

Naturally I would agree that the further a religion is from
Judaism/Christianity, the further its devotee has to travel. Yet that
does not preclude such devotees from "feeling after Him" and such
efforts will not go unrewarded.

[Kendall K. Down]

On 27/02/2023 22:42, Mike Davis wrote:

> 'Majority' may be true in specific areas, but, frankly, I don't think we
> have enough evidence to argue either way what the majority practise was.

Interestingly, I have just come across this passage in Eusebius' "Life
of Constantine", which may be of interest.

==========
Chapter XVIII - He enjoins the General Observance of the Lord's Day,
and the Day of Preparation.

He ordained, too, that one day should be regarded as a special occasion
for prayer: I mean that which is truly the first and chief of all, the
day of our Lord and Saviour. The entire care of his household was
entrusted to deacons and other ministers consecrated to the service of
God, and distinguished by gravity of life and every other virtue: while
his trusty body guard, strong in affection and fidelity to his person,
found in their emperor an instructor in the practice of piety, and like
him held the Lord's salutary day in honour and performed on that day the
devotions which he loved. The same observance was recommended by this
blessed prince to all classes of his subjects: his earnest desire being
gradually to lead all mankind to the worship of God. Accordingly he
enjoined on all the subjects of the Roman empire to observe the Lord's
day, as a day of rest, and also to honour the day which precedes the
Sabbath; in memory, I suppose, of what the Saviour of mankind is
recorded to have achieved on that day.[270] And since his desire was
to teach his whole army zealously to honour the Saviour's day (which
derives its name from light, and from the sun),[271] he freely
granted to those among them who were partakers of the divine faith,
leisure for attendance on the services of the Church of God, in order
that they might be able, without impediment, to perform their religious
worship.
__________________________________________________________________

[270][That is, Friday. The passage is not very intelligible. Does it
mean that Constantine ordered this day to be distinguished in some way
from others, as the day of the Lord's crucifixion? - Bag.]

[271][The decree of Constantine for the general observance of Sunday
appears to have been issued A.D. 321, before which time both "the old
and new sabbath" were observed by Christians. "Constantine (says
Gibbon, ch. 20, note 8) styles the Lord's day Dies solis, a name which
could not offend the ears of his Pagan subjects." - Bag.] This has been
urged as ground for saying that Constantine did not commit himself to
Christianity until the end of life, but it only shows his tact and care
in treating the diverse elements of his empire.
==========

There are a couple of points to notice.

1) Clearly Sunday observance was not universal in Constantine's day,
otherwise he would not need to issue any command on the subject.

2) However it would seem that Constantine was not setting up Sunday as
an alternative to the Sabbath, but as an additional time of prayer and
rest. Note that the same command which ordered prayers on Sunday also
ordered honour for Friday!

3) Note the comment in note 271, that "both the old and new sabbath"
were observed by Christians. It is not clear from Justin Martyr,
however, that the Sunday pre-dawn service marked Sunday as a day of rest
as was the Sabbath.

[Mike Davis]

On 28/02/2023 06:59, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 22:42, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> 'Majority' may be true in specific areas, but, frankly, I don't think
>> we have enough evidence to argue either way what the majority practise
>> was.
>
> You have two historians stating that in their contemporary world - that
> is, they are not reporting what was in their past, about which we might
> reasonably conclude they could be mistaken - "all the churches in all
> the world" keep the Sabbath.
>
> Against their word what do you have? Where is your evidence that they
> were wrong?

I don't think sampling statistics were very well developed at that time,
nor do I think that records of church attendance were collected
throughout all regions...

>> I might debate that with you another time, but I do accept that the
>> mono-theistic religions are seeking the One God.
>
> Paul's statement in Acts 17:26, 27 was not directed to monotheists.
>
> Naturally I would agree that the further a religion is from
> Judaism/Christianity, the further its devotee has to travel. Yet that
> does not preclude such devotees from "feeling after Him" and such
> efforts will not go unrewarded.

Indeed.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Mike Davis]

On 28/02/2023 08:34, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 27/02/2023 22:42, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> 'Majority' may be true in specific areas, but, frankly, I don't think
>> we have enough evidence to argue either way what the majority practise
>> was.
>
> Interestingly, I have just come across this passage in Eusebius' "Life
> of Constantine", which may be of interest.
>
> ==========
> Chapter XVIII - He enjoins the General Observance of the Lord's Day,
> and the Day of Preparation.

[snip]

>   __________________________________________________________________
>
> [270][That is, Friday. The passage is not very intelligible. Does it
> mean that Constantine ordered this day to be distinguished in some way
> from others, as the day of the Lord's crucifixion? - Bag.]
>
> [271][The decree of Constantine for the general observance of Sunday
> appears to have been issued A.D. 321, before which time both "the old
> and new sabbath" were observed by Christians. "Constantine (says
> Gibbon, ch. 20, note 8) styles the Lord's day Dies solis, a name which
> could not offend the ears of his Pagan subjects." - Bag.] This has been
> urged as ground for saying that Constantine did not commit himself to
> Christianity until the end of life, but it only shows his tact and care
> in treating the diverse elements of his empire.
> ==========
>
> There are a couple of points to notice.
>
> 1) Clearly Sunday observance was not universal in Constantine's day,
> otherwise he would not need to issue any command on the subject.

True.

> 2) However it would seem that Constantine was not setting up Sunday as
> an alternative to the Sabbath, but as an additional time of prayer and
> rest. Note that the same command which ordered prayers on Sunday also
> ordered honour for Friday!

Possibly.

> 3) Note the comment in note 271, that "both the old and new sabbath"
> were observed by Christians. It is not clear from Justin Martyr,
> however, that the Sunday pre-dawn service marked Sunday as a day of rest
> as was the Sabbath.

No, I'm not clear either. I haven't got time at present, but I'll do
some parallel investigations when I get some.

Mike
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 28/02/2023 12:07, Mike Davis wrote:

>> Against their word what do you have? Where is your evidence that they
>> were wrong?

> I don't think sampling statistics were very well developed at that time,
> nor do I think that records of church attendance were collected
> throughout all regions...

"I don't think" is not evidence.

Both Sozomen and Socrates go into great detail about the Arian
controversy, when bishops from all over the known world were gathered
together in the Council of Nicea. That, or subsequent councils, would
have given the historians the opportunity to learn about the customs of
Christian worship from well outside their own region.

[Mike Davis]

On 28/02/2023 22:13, Kendall K. Down wrote:
> On 28/02/2023 12:07, Mike Davis wrote:
>
>>> Against their word what do you have? Where is your evidence that they
>>> were wrong?
>
>> I don't think sampling statistics were very well developed at that
>> time, nor do I think that records of church attendance were collected
>> throughout all regions...
>
> "I don't think" is not evidence.

It may be lazy of me to doubt the sources, but I do know a bit about
censuses* - and I'm pretty sure they didn't collect 'church attendance'
in those days.

* Usually carried out by authorities wanting to collect taxes.

> Both Sozomen and Socrates go into great detail about the Arian
> controversy, when bishops from all over the known world were gathered
> together in the Council of Nicea. That, or subsequent councils, would
> have given the historians the opportunity to learn about the customs of
> Christian worship from well outside their own region.

Customs, yes, but not statistical evidence.

M
--
Mike Davis

[Kendall K. Down]

On 01/03/2023 13:19, Mike Davis wrote:

> It may be lazy of me to doubt the sources, but I do know a bit about
> censuses* - and I'm pretty sure they didn't collect 'church attendance'
> in those days.

I am sure you are right about that - nevertheless, if Sunday-keeping had
been common, they would have known about it. The fact that both
historians single out the same couple of places for their oddity in
*not* observing the Sabbath would seem to indicate that they were very
much the exception - even if it should prove that the villages and
suburbs round those cities were also keeping Sunday.

> Customs, yes, but not statistical evidence.

But accurate enough and common knowledge enough for their purposes,
which was to argue for toleration of differences.