LS only and every Sunday

[musicman]

The CoC will twist, force, and warp the Scriptures to fit whatever their belief system demands.

Very true! That's how it comes up with the "5 Acts of Worship," "Plan of Salvation, " etc.

[agricola]

Are people having some difficulties with the 'quote' function? because some of the posts aren't looking quite like it.

[Struggler]

The fine folks at this church just want to follow the magic pattern.

[katisha]

I asked this question once while still a member, and got plenty of dirty looks for asking it, but here goes:

Given: Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, which we call Sunday.
Given: The apostles and believers gathered together 50 days after the resurrection and received the Holy Spirit
Given: From that point on that day has been called Pentecost.

Now here is my question: if you count 50 days from Easter Sunday, you end up on a Monday. So how could the 3000 new believers have taken part in the LS on the first day of the week? They would have had to wait until the following Sunday. Right?

I am surprised no one at your cofc took joy in answering this math word problem since it is such a technical thing and so related to Acts 2:38. I have no doubt you got dirty looks but was no one able to jump up and answer this?

The confusion in your question derives from asserting that it was 5o days after the resurrection.

Because Pentecost was an annual event preceding Jesus and therefore has not relation to nor is it timed to/from the resurrection. So Pentecost is not measured from the resurrection but instead is a function of Jewish feast weeks ending on a Sabbath. It is AFTER the 7 weeks of festival/feast...so the day AFTER the full seven (7ea) 7day-weeks would be the 50th day and so the Greek based word Pente-cost. And since it is day after the end of the 7 weeks, it must needs be on a first day of a new week (or the day after the 7th Sabbath). So they didn't gather 50 days after his resurrection, but on the day after the 7 weeks of feast were completed. Sorry for the repetition...couldn't find a clear way to state it and did not feel like re-writing.

And no, I do not care to go into the whole how can it be 3 days in the grave if he was crucified on Friday and Raised first thing Sunday morning. Discussing car rental companies policies where any part of a day counts as an entire "rental" "day" is not a great way to explain the salvation on Mankind. IMHO

KLP, I should have done more research in regards to the meaning of Pentacost. Thanks for explaining.

[Lev]

And no, I do not care to go into the whole how can it be 3 days in the grave if he was crucified on Friday and Raised first thing Sunday morning.

Oh and by the way, just to be more confusing - SOMETIMES a holy day is called 'a sabbath' even when it is nowhere NEAR the actual Sabbath day on the seventh day of the week. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

These two quoted statements probably fit together. As I understand it the day and night count, it was most likely a Wednesday or Thursday when Jesus was crucified. But who cares? I don't know of any weekly observance or gathering that's prescribed in the Bible other than Paul's instruction that Christians at certain churches save money every first day of the week.

Lev

[KLP]

...Oh and by the way, just to be more confusing - SOMETIMES a holy day is called 'a sabbath' even when it is nowhere NEAR the actual Sabbath day on the seventh day of the week. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

My point was that Pentecost or the festival itself was going long before Jesus was born...so they had "Pentecost" prior to Jesus...so in that sense it is not "related".

And yeah, the special Sabbath is one of the explanations about the last supper being on Wed or Thursday, that there were two Sabbaths that week and Jesus not being crucified on "good" Friday but on Thursday which helps the 3 day argument. I doubt things will ever change on this topic...but maybe if Lent were shortened by one day...maybe?

[Turtle]

Besides the possible example of Jesus at "the last supper",which may or may not have been a Passover meal, is there any reason to believe that all the other times Christians " broke bread" that it was unleavened bread?

[KLP]

Besides the possible example of Jesus at "the last supper",which may or may not have been a Passover meal, is there any reason to believe that all the other times Christians " broke bread" that it was unleavened bread?

All of the references use the generic word for bread. There is a specific word for unleavened bread however it is never used in any of the references to LS. So...if one is going to follow the argument of verbal inspiration and the Holy Spirit chose specific words for a purpose, then one has to wonder why the Spirit never chose the available word for unleavened.

Oh, and no "leaven" is not always used in a negative manner or symbolic of sin. Luke 13:21 Jesus says the kingdom of Heaven is like leaven.

And while 1 Cor 5:7ff is read often during LS...because ya know, it says leavened bread so it must be LS right? ...No Jesus is the lamb of Passover and the congregation is the bread. So if the congregation is the bread then it does not fit that it is discussing LS. (Yeah, I have thought about this a bit...and the sloppy arguments from my CofC-ism just irked me more and more)

OK, so one may say...well they didn't have to USE the word because it was so well understood and accepted that it is not mentioned. Just like not having to state that musical instruments were not allowed...it was just so well understood. (sloppy thinking again) OK, but then that is the argument of those who say Peter was a presiding Apostle and therefore served as the first Pope. "It is never mentioned because everyone already knew it" is just a weak argument no matter who is using it.

[Lev]

OK, so one may say...well they didn't have to USE the word because it was so well understood and accepted that it is not mentioned. Just like not having to state that musical instruments were not allowed...it was just so well understood. (sloppy thinking again) OK, but then that is the argument of those who say Peter was a presiding Apostle and therefore served as the first Pope. "It is never mentioned because everyone already knew it" is just a weak argument no matter who is using it.

That's actually a good argument if you're talking about a collection of writings that were intended to be used in a particular time and place by a small group of people. Not such a good argument for a book that was meant to transcend history.

Lev

[B.H.]

How does using the definitie article in one place and not the other signify its it the Lord's Supper we are talking about. It uses the definite article in regards with apostle's doctrine and also fellowship in that verse too.

Are we not supposed to continue in the apostles doctrine and the fellowship even after Sunday Worship services?