Family of God: [Church_of_Christ] Re: Can you guess?

Greetings Beth, ED here

Beth: That is "your" defination of "thus saith the Lord"...but that does not make it the right defination.

ED: This is the meaning of the expression as generally held. You ridicule "CENI" without understanding it. "C" is not simply command; it is also statement. The "C" does not have to appear in the form of the imperative; it may appear in the form of statement as well. The statement that there is a day that is called the Lord's Day fits the category of "C".

Beth: No one is denying that the early Christians met on the first day of the week AS WELL AS OTHER DAYS.
> The problem lies with you saying that it was a "COMMAND" for them to meet "EVERY" Sunday. "IT WAS NOT A COMMAND." I would be willing to bet (if I were a betting person) that if your wife (if you're married) gave you a command to do something you wouldn't have a problem with discerning a command or request or hinting that you should do something because the neighbors husband did it. A command is a flat out order to be "carried out" by the one receiving it. The 10 Commandments are called commandments because God "SAITH" Thou shalt (not maybe or if you want to) you WILL carry out my commandments or you will suffer the consequences. The 10 Commandments were a "thus saith the Lord." Even a command to a computer is for the purpose of carrying out a opeation.  We understand what a command is from a Armed Forces officer or any other "boss type" command... so why are you trying to say that an example is a command that the Lord said,
> You Have to do it? He did not say your HAVE TO do it.
>
Ed:   Again, it appears you have not read very much in this area and therefore misunderstand the meaning of CENI.

Ed:    According to the ISBE and commentaries which represent the best of biblical scholarship (not associated with CoC and without thi! s bias) Ac 20:7 represents the day on which the assembly for worship took place

Beth:  According to who? Not God???

Ed: Again you miss the point. I did not reference the ISBE as opposed to God, but as an outside unbiased and scholarly source to help us all grasp the full meaning of Acts 20:7 which is inspired of the HS. However, when one is determined to reject scripture, there is little you or I can do.

Beth: (in regard to why Paul stayed at Troas 7 days, though in a hurry to return to Jerusalem) SIGH!!!! Another assumption.

Ed: Yes, it is an assumption. It is an assumption that fits the context. You also assume. You assume that the mention that he stayed 7 days was just a note of time with no significance. You assume that there is no significance to the notation of time in verse 7 that they gathered together on the first day of the week. You assume there is no significance to the use of an awkward Hebraism in Greek (1st day of the week). Your assumptions do not fit the context of either Acts, the historical record, or unbiased biblical scholarship of centuries; yet you continue to stubbornly hold to them.

Beth:   But not everyone does...so who is right? If you believe you are right then you have to believe that I, along with many others are wrong. If we believe that we are right then we have to believe you are wrong. What you believe is just as clear as a bell to you and what I believe is just as clear as a bell to me. So what does that mean? That neither one of us knows what we are talking about?

ED: I thought this is about discussion. Obviously in any discussion each of us put forth reasons why we believe. It is done so vigorously but without disrespect. I offer reasons for what I believe and ask you to consider them; as I do what you set forth.

bETH: . . .. So why do you think that is? Do you think that we have all just fell off the deep end and are just trying to destroy the Lord's church? Have you EVER considered that we "might"...just might be right? I can't speak about everyone who believes as I do, but those that I personally know who believe as I do are scholars in their own right. They may not have a degree in bible or haven't studied Greek/Hebrew, in fact most of them don't and haven't, but they have searched scripture diligently and with an open mind and have let the Holy Spirit lead them into truths. The last time I read anything relating to truths in scripture it stated...John 16:13..."Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.....He will show you things to come." It doesn't matter how many scholars tell you what truth is...truth is revealed by the Spirit to each individual as they walk their walk with God and if we let the thoughts of others, especially scholars, influence our thinking, we are stiffling the Spirit within us.

ED: 1st) You ask for the reason. I cannot know the mind of another, I can only judge by what they say (1 Cor 2:11). So I do not care to go beyond that. But I will say that we all must be careful that in our effort to understand the Bible we are not influenced by our cultural bias'. Much of what we see taking place in our brotherhood was predicted by George Barna and others who study trends in thinking. Such studies have become quite adept at predicting market trends. Barna has used them to predict trends as they influence religious thinking. The thinking that is often reflected in this forum by those who believe they are rejecting "traditions" without biblical merit, is that which was predicted. 2nd) As for your Greek/Hebrew comment and your "scholars". Even without a knowledge of Greek/Hebrew one can consult unbiased reference books that have become standard works (meaning that they have withstood the test of being unbiased and generally accepted by all), and learn these simple truths that I have made reference to. The fact that they are unknown demonstrates that conclusions have been reached without thorough study. Moreover, the unwillingness to consider such things demonstrates a obstinance that is not born of Christ. 3rd) You refer to the guidance of the HS. The HS speaks to us thru words (1 Cor 2:12-14). Your reference to John 16:13 demonstrates carelessness. Jesus was talking to his apostles, not to disciples in general. The occasion is what we call the Last Supper. They were to become special witnesses (15:27) and therefore received "inspiration" (14:26; 16:13). I can certainly understand how someone today would stubbornly hold to something in spite of evidence to the contrary if they believed they were inspired by the HS.

Beth: IBSE seems to have a prominent place in your thinking process, but I will again agree with you that "giving" was more of a command than meeting on the first day of the week. But then you go a step too far when you make it a command for us to follow. It was a specific collection for a specific people and it say's nothing about it being an ever Sunday deal. Paul never mentioned again them continuing to lay by in store.  They were just to help the suffering brothers and sisters. There is nothing in scripture that stipulates them collecting for any cause other than for helping the saints to my knowledge. Acts. 2...they sold their possessions and gave to those who had nothing. Do you know of other exampes of them giving for anything else. So, in my somewhat "feeble" mind when Paul told the Christians to lay by and store it would be the same as today if an Elder told the congregation...we have a congregation of brothers and sisters in the town up the road that are really in dire need right now and we must help them...or we have some in this congregation that need help so all of you get out your checkbook and give as generously as you can to help these people... and not mentioning a collection plate being passed for anything else until someone else is in need. That is what my feeble mind has discerned from scripture.

ED: I am not discussing giving. I am defending the fact that assembling on the first day of the week is a "thus says the Lord". No, not a command in the sense you demand, but still a thus says the Lord.

Ed:   Furthermore, "since the 7th day week was unknown to Greek thought, some regular observance of a hebdomadal cycle must have been settled at Corinth before Paul could write his command" (ISBE). Furthermore, the phrase "the first day of the week" in Greek is poor Greek ("mia" one for "prote"; a Hebraism) and the fact that it is used in each Gospel for the day Jesus was raised and again in Acts 20:7 is certainly not accidental; but reflects a fixed Christian teaching that the first day of the week is the Lord's Day!
>
Beth: Well!!!!! there you go again. Greek......observance of hebdomadal cycle....(mia...one for "prote", a Hebraism.......reflects a fixed Christian teaching. I'll say one thing. it is certainly Greek to me. I'd almost be willing to bet that my portion of the Holy Spirit indwelling in me, that God has so graciously given to me would think it Greek too. I think for my part in this...I have corresponded enough with you. We were at a stalmate before we started. So you can have the last say.

ED: I know Greek. I once taught Greek for one of our Christian Universities, though for a very short time. But I do not offer you what I say. I give what is recognized by all as a standard reference work that represents an unbiased view of what Luke intended when he wrote. If you know anything about language and translation, you know that sometimes things are lost in translation. If you value the NT to the degree that you claim, I simply ask that you consider the possibilities that you have been misled.

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (81) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Database | Polls

Participation guidelines: List policies are posted in the files area as listpolicies.html

We don't want to see you go, but if you must, the address is Church_of_Christ-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods