Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman
Well, an understanding of Greek constructs would help one know the word "day" is implied in the phrase.
It's like saying, "I'll meet you at Billy's BBQ Hut at three."
One does not need to say "three o'clock" for most folks to know what one means.
I noticed you never mentioned anything about that sermon Mullah Calvin gave. Is that what you guys hear in your churches on the Catholic Sabbath? No wonder you sound so bitter.
All the verses you quoted can be refuted with scripture as I have done on this forum countless times. If you choose to close your eyes to simple scriptural truth, that is your affair.
This is sad, really sad.
You struggle very hard to cling to your false beliefsb'shem Y'shuaYou refuse to read and believe the Word of G-d
You place more faith in the Traditions of man.
Not unlike the Pharisees that Y'shua referred to in Matthew
Mt. 16:11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you
about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the
Pharisees and Sadducees.”Mt. 16:12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard
against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the
Pharisees and Sadducees.
What is more sad is that many good Christians choose to honor the "Day of the Sun" brought to us by the most apostate organization ever. Simple scriptural truth would open their eyes if only they would look....and cast off their pride.
Speaking from experience, it is a very difficult task. Opening ones mind to allow the scriptures say what they say after being thouroughly immersed in a doctrine from birth is very hard.
Incidentally, I generally find that those who have converted to the beliefs we share are much more passionate than those who have grown up in truth. Is it the same with you guys?
Exuberance comes first...I believe....followed by realization that you are up against a formidable adversary who concentrates only on Christianity, knowing that that is from whence he will see his doom. You then recognize that your minority position is most logical....and when you hear the taunt "All these Churches can't be wrong...can they?" The answer is actually, "All these Churches can't be right...can they?"
Our adversary will continue to divide and conquer.....keeping most of organized Christianity in their own little corner of Apostasy. That is why this forum is so valuable as many folks who normally would not be exposed to Biblical truth and logic may find it here from time to time.
In answer to Chris's question, sometimes those that grew up in truth are a little less passionate, but sometimes they're just tired of butting their heads up against a brick wall for so long. The truth is so obvious to us that it's sometimes difficult, and frustrating, for us to accept that others just can't see it. It's right there! In black and white, in the bible! Yet for whatever reason God has not decided to call everyone at this time so the truth isn't obvious.
God does call people, and he sometimes uses us as vehicle to draw them to the truth. As Diego said, we need to continue to use this forum and other vehicles to get the truth out.
The amazing part are the different paths we all take and end up at the same conclusion.
Sorry, 1 Cor 10 specifically is referring to the Lord's supper because it refers to the bread AND THE WINE. 1 Corinithans 11 also specifically mentions the Lord's Supper.
But Acts 20 NEVER mentions wine, the cup of communion. Don't you find it a little odd that a vital part of the "Lord's Supper" is totally neglected? If Acts 20 is about the Lord's Supper, don't you find it odd that they never even discuss drinking the wine?
The logical, and correct answer, is that this was simply a fellowship meal, a breaking of bread. Even this is incidental to the real point of the account. The point of the account is to relay the miraculous healing that Paul did to the young man who fell from the window. It isn't some mythical Sunday worship service. The only reason you HAVE to believe that is that you can't accept the fact that the bible teaches something contrary to your opinion on the sabbath.
If it was after sundown on Saturday, then it would be "Sunday" according to our reckoning. The "first day of the week" would have run from subdown on Saturday to sundown on Sunday.
No, it would be "Saturday night" according to our reckoning. Again, the actual term used in greek is "first of the sabbaths" (mia ton sabbaton). And again, this shows absolutely that the sabbath is still considered valid by the author since the author, a gentile Christian, is marking time, in holy scripture, by the sabbath which you say no longer exists.
When you have something substantive, like a specific example in the Bible of baptized Jews and gentiles worshipping Jesus together on the Jewish last day sabbath, please come back and share that with us. Otherwise your comments have little impact on those of us who follow the practices of the apostles.
"Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)
But not the sabbath/ That ended at sundown. It was "the frst day of the week."
The fact remains that, in this account, where the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles together -- is found worshipping, there is no mantion of any activity on the Jewish last day sabbath. Nothing. Nada. Zero. The same is true for the rest of the Scriptures. No last day sabbath worship for the universal church anywhere.
Well apparently he wasn't much of an evangelist. He preached for weeks at a time and you're making the contention that not one person out of a whole city became a Christian? Or are you saying that everytime Paul baptized one he told them about a secret Sunday service (unmentioned in scripture) and that the the new Christians went alone to unmentioned Sunday services while Paul continued preaching on the sabbath?
Of course that proves nothing. Unless you want to start counting numbers for and against. There are lots of cults and heresies that share common false beliefs but come from different quarters.
The "first of the sabbaths". Marking time by denoting WHEN the sabbath actually began and ended. Thus showing that the author BELIEVED the sabbath was still in effect.
The fact remains that, in this account, where the church -- baptized Jews and gentiles together -- is found worshipping, there is no mantion of any activity on the Jewish last day sabbath. Nothing. Nada. Zero. The same is true for the rest of the Scriptures. No last day sabbath worship for the universal church anywhere.
No wine. No ceremony. No mention of Lord's supper, but just breaking bread. Do you think that everytime "breaking bread" is mentioned in the bible that it's the Lord's Supper? Because it's mentioned alot.
The truly sad thing is your insistence that Acts 13:44 says something that is plainly not in the text.
Yet another sign of last day sabbatarian desperation.
The essential are all there. What is really conspicuously missing is any mention of a synagogue or worshiping on the last day sabbath of the Jews in Acts 20.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.