I wrote in response to dlecoint@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (Darius_Lecointe):  >[It's not clear how much more needs to be said other than the FAQ.  I >think Paul's comments on esteeming one day over another (Rom 14) is >probably all that needs to be said.  Was Paul a God too? Is an interpretation of the words of Paul of higher priority than the direct word of Jesus in Matt5:14-19? Paul begins Romans 14 with "If someone is weak in the faith ..." Do you count yourself as one who is weak in the faith?  >I accept that Darius is doing >what he does in honor of the Lord.  I just wish he might equally >accept that those who "esteem all days alike" are similarly doing >their best to honor the Lord.  Yes, but what does the Bible have to say? What did Jesus say? Paul closes Romans 14 with, "On the other hand, the person with doubts about something who eats it anyway is guilty, because he isn't acting on his faith, and any failure to act on faith is a sin." Gaus, ISBN:0-933999-99-2 Have you read the Ten Commandments which are a portion of the Law? Have you read Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19? Is there any doubt in your mind about what is right and what is sin (Greek hamartia = missing the mark)?  >However I'd like to be clear that I do not think there's unambiguous >proof that regular Christian worship was on the first day.  As I >indicated, there are responses on both of the passages cited.  Whereas, the Ten Commandments and Jesus' words in Matt5:14-19 are fairly clear, are they not?  >The difficulty with both of these passages is that they are actually >about something else.  They both look like they are talking about >nnregular Christian meetings, but neither explicitly says "and they >gathered every Sunday for worship".  We get various pieces of >information, but nothing aimed at answering this question.    Matt5:14-19 doesn't answer your question?  >what day Christians met in their houses.  Acts 20:7, despite Darius' >confusion, is described by Acts as occuring on Sunday.  ... It doesn't >say they gathered to >see Paul off, but that when they were gathered for breaking bread,  Breaking bread - roughly synonymous with eating.  >So I think the most obvious reading of this is that "on the first day >of every week" simply means every time they gather for worship.    How do you unite this concept of yours with the Ten Commandments and Jesus's word in Matt5:14-19?  >I think the reason we have only implications and not clear statements >is that the NT authors assumed that their readers knew when Christian >worship was. >--clh]  Or, they assumed that the Ten Commandments and Jesus' word in Matt5:14-19 actually stood for something? Perhaps they were "strong in the faith?"  ---------------------------  [No, I don't believe that Paul can overrule God.  However Paul was writing for a largely Gentile audience.  The Law was regarded by Jews at the time (and now) as binding on Jews, but not on Gentiles.  There are rules that were binding on all human beings (the so-called Noachic laws), but they are quite minimal.  The issue that the Church had to face after Jesus' death was what to do about Gentiles who wanted to follow Christ.  The decision not to impose the Law on them didn't say that the Law was abolished.  It simply acknowledged that fact that it didn't apply to Gentiles.  Thus there is no contradiction with Mat 5. As far as I can tell, both Paul and other Jewish Christians did continue to participate in Jewish worship on the Sabbath.  Thus they continued to obey the Law.  The issue was (and is) with Gentile Christians, who are not covered by the Law (or at least not by the ceremonial aspects of it).  Jesus dealt mostly with Jews.  I think we can reasonably assume that Mat 5 was directed to a Jewish audience.  He did interact with Gentiles a few times (e.g. the centurion whose slave was healed and a couple of others).  The terms used to describe the centurion (see Luke 7) suggest that he was a "God-fearer", i.e. a Gentile who followed God, but had not adopted the whole Jewish Law.  He was commended by Jewish elders as a worthy person, and Jesus accepted him as such. This seems to me to indicate that Jesus accepted the prevailing view that Gentiles need not accept the Law.  However there's more involved if you want to compare Jesus and Paul on the Law.  In order to get a full picture of the role of the Law, we have to come to grips with Paul's apparent rejection of the Law, and how that relates to Jesus' commendation of the Law.  At least as I read Paul, he says that the Law serves a purpose that has been in a certain sense superceded.  Again, this issue isn't one of the abolition of the Law.  In the middle of his discussion, Paul notes that he might be understood this way, and assures us that that's not what he intends to say.  Rather, he sees the Law as primarily being present to convict people of their sinfulness.  But ultimately it's an impossible standard, and one that has been superceded by Christ. Paul's comments are not the world's clearest here, and not everyone agrees with my reading.  But the interesting thing to notice is that even this radical position does not entail an abolition of the Law. It still remains as an uncompromising standard, from which not an iota or dot may be removed.  For its purpose of convicting of sin, it's important that it not be relaxed.  However for Christians, it's not the end -- ultimately we live in faith, not Law.  While the theoretical categories they use are rather different, in the end I think Jesus and Paul come to a rather similar conclusion.  The quoted passage from Mat 5 should be taken in the context of the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus shows us how he interprets the Law.  The "not an iota or dot" would suggest a rather literal reading, but in fact that's not Jesus' approach.  Jesus' interpretations emphasize the intent of the Law, and stay away from the ceremonial details.  Indeed he is well known for taking a rather free attitude towards the Sabbath and kosher laws.  Some scholars claim that Mat 5:17-20 needs to be taken in the context of 1st Cent. Jewish discussions.  Jesus accuses his opponents of caring about giving a tenth of even the most minor herbs, but neglecting the things that really matter: justice, mercy and faith, and caring about how cups and plates are cleaned, but not about the fact that inside the people who use them are full of extortion and rapacity.  (Mat 23:23-25) This, and the discussion later in Mat 5, suggest that Jesus has a very specific view of the Law in mind, and that when he talks about maintaining the Law in its full strength, he is thinking of these aspects of it. Paul's conclusion is similar.  While he talks about the Law being superceded, all of the specific examples he gives involve the "ceremonial law", such as circumcision and the Sabbath.  He is quite concerned about maintaining moral standards.  The net result of this is that when Paul talks about the Law being superceded, and Jesus talks about the Law being maintained, I believe they are talking about different aspects of the Law.  Paul is embroiled in arguments about circumcision.  As is natural in letters responding to specific situations, he's looking at the aspect of the Law that is currently causing trouble: the Law as specifically Jewish ceremonies.  He certainly does not intend to abolish divine standards of conduct.  On the other hand, when Jesus commends the Law, he seems to be talking the Law in its broadest implications for morals and human relationships, and deemphasizing those aspects that were later to give Paul so much trouble.  It's unfortunate that people use the same terms in different ways, but we should be familiar with that from current conflicts.  Look at the way terms like "family values" take on special meaning from the current context.  Imagine some poor historian of the future trying to figure out why "family values" should be used as a code word for opposition to homosexuality in one specific period in the U.S.  I think Law had taken on a similar role in the arguments Paul was involved in.  Paul was clearly not rejecting all of the Jewish values that go along with the term "Law", any more than people who concerned about the "family values" movement are really opposed to family values.