Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

[StanJ]

So, you've got one example of Paul preaching after midnight, after having a farewell dinner with his friends, as he was getting ready to leave the next day. This example doesn't prove anything at all.

And here, I always thought the whole point of this story was the death of poor Eutychus. If nothing else, this little incident ought to serve as a warning to long-winded preachers. Keep it short, keep it simple, keep it interesting...and whatever else you do, keep it short. An hour is more than enough time to get your point across, and if it isn't, perhaps you don't need to be behind a pulpit to begin with. I always shoot for about 45 minutes, and that's usually enough. I have always hated long, drawn out sermons, myself, so why impose them on other people?

And you are going to fall back on the seriously lame excuse that, the rest of the time, he went to the synagogue because that's where the Jews were, so that he could preach to them?
Did you think that he might not have encountered any Jews just hanging out in Jerusalem, or in any of these other towns where Jews lived?
Do you think that he went every Sabbath for a year and a half, because he was just looking for Jews to preach to? Was Paul really so desperate as that for people to listen to him?

Oh, Oz...I gave you more credit than that, now. You disappoint me, here.

Do you understand that the Sabbath was on a Saturday Barrd? If so, why the bloviation, and if not, why not just ask? Oz's point is if you want to follow the ten commandments, then you better start going to or having your services on a Saturday, because that is what God commanded. You seem to get lost in your own verboseness?

 

[StanJ]

My old Gran' taught me long ago...an opinion is only worth as much as the person who holds it.
Let's just say that, given some of the things we disagree on, your opinion has no value to me whatsoever.
For you to actually hurt my feelings, Stan, I'd have to actually care what you think.

And thus, you elucidate your own dilemma. Your words say one thing, but they actually convey the exact opposite, or you would not bother even posting all that you have. It's sad when everyone but you can see it.

 

[Barrd]

Do you understand that the Sabbath was on a Saturday Barrd? If so, why the bloviation, and if not, why not just ask? Oz's point is if you want to follow the ten commandments, then you better start going to or having your services on a Saturday, because that is what God commanded. You seem to get lost in your own verboseness?

Do you understand that we very often do have our services on Saturday? It depends on what day our blue collar workers have off that week.
More to the point, do you understand that the actual commandment doesn't say a single word about worship?
You can read, can't you?

 

[OzSpen]

And here is Poetry:

The Saint’s Prayer​

(based on the prayer by St. Francis of Assisi)​

Be thou, Oh Father, ever with me​

And let Thy peace be seen in me​

Where there is hatred, let me sow Thy love​

Where doubt, faith in the Lord above​

Where despair, let me teach hope in Thee​

Thy pardon for every injury​

Where there is darkness, let me shine Thy light​

And where there is sadness, Thy joy so bright​

Not to be consoled, but to console​

This is Thy plan to make me whole​

Let me be Thy example, Lord​

Let me bring Thy love to a hate-filled world​

Not to be understood, but to understand​

In Thee, Oh Lord, have I made my stand​

For it is in giving that we receive​

As Thou hast taught us to believe​

To Thee, Oh Lord, my life I give​

For it is in dying that I live​

Amen​

​

Narrative poetry is next:​

You give me another red herring fallacy by not addressing what I asked you to give.

I provided you with a quote from today's Brisbane Times and asked you to tell me the difference between narrative and poetry with this quote (see #384). I asked: Please tell me what kind of style this item from the Brisbane Times is using today:

Queensland's Islamic community has vowed to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with "Christian brothers and sisters" to protect asylum seekers from being returned to offshore detention centres, "even if it means our arrest" (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/islamic-community-shoulder-to-shoulder-with-christians-to-help-asylum-seekers-20160208-gmovu2.html).

So what did you do? You gave me a copy of one of your poems. That is not answering what I asked.

If you don't know the answer to what I asked, simply say so and we can move on. It seems by your waffling around this topic that you don't have any idea what narrative is when it comes to writing a news item in an online newspaper.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So, you've got one example of Paul preaching after midnight, after having a farewell dinner with his friends, as he was getting ready to leave the next day. This example doesn't prove anything at all.

And here, I always thought the whole point of this story was the death of poor Eutychus. If nothing else, this little incident ought to serve as a warning to long-winded preachers. Keep it short, keep it simple, keep it interesting...and whatever else you do, keep it short. An hour is more than enough time to get your point across, and if it isn't, perhaps you don't need to be behind a pulpit to begin with. I always shoot for about 45 minutes, and that's usually enough. I have always hated long, drawn out sermons, myself, so why impose them on other people?

And you are going to fall back on the seriously lame excuse that, the rest of the time, he went to the synagogue because that's where the Jews were, so that he could preach to them?
Did you think that he might not have encountered any Jews just hanging out in Jerusalem, or in any of these other towns where Jews lived?
Do you think that he went every Sabbath for a year and a half, because he was just looking for Jews to preach to? Was Paul really so desperate as that for people to listen to him?

Oh, Oz...I gave you more credit than that, now. You disappoint me, here.

The Barrd,

On which day of the week did the believers meet to break bread according to Acts 20:7 (NIV)?

 

[OzSpen]

I think I've demonstrated rather well that I know the definitions of those three. What you are doing is just being difficult. I'm not exactly sure why...but if it makes you happy, here are the definitions:




narrative

noun nar·ra·tive \ˈner-ə-tiv, ˈna-rə-\

Simple Definition of narrative

• 
  : a story that is told or written
  

Full Definition of narrative

1. 
   1 : something that is narrated : story, account
   
2. 
   2 : the art or practice of narration
   
3. 
   3 : the representation in art of an event or story; also : an example of such a representation
   

narrative adjective


nar·ra·tive·ly adverb

poetry in next post

Now tell me your definition of narrative based on the example I gave you from the Brisbane Times today.

 

[Barrd]

Now tell me your definition of narrative based on the example I gave you from the Brisbane Times today.

Obviously, the journalist is reporting on some sort of a demonstration...I'm not sure exactly what they are expecting to happen, you didn't really give me enough to go on.
I'm not from Brisbane, I've never been there, and I have no idea what this story is about.

This is a narrative, of course. DOH. B)
Are we through playing children's games now, Oz?

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

On which day of the week did the believers meet to break bread according to Acts 20:7 (NIV)?

Act 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Gosh, Oz...it looks a whole lot like they met on the first day of the week for a meal....more than likely a farewell banquet, since Paul was leaving the next day.
This is not proof that they met regularly on the first day of the week, although you aren't the first person to try to tell me that, nor, do I suspect that you will be the last.

The fact remains that Paul usually did his thing on Saturday...you know, when he went to the synagogue, "looking for Jews to convert."

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Now, here is the opportunity Paul has been waiting for, right? The Apostles will be meeting the next day, since it will be the first day of the week, and Paul will be there...he can invite these eager Gentiles, and...uh...but, he doesn't do that, does he? Why not?

Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Now, why do you suppose the city came together on the next sabbath, instead of the following day, since the following day would have been perfect...unless, of course, they weren't having regular meetings on the first day of the week, but rather kept the same sabbath they had been used to all of their lives, as Jesus had done while He was with them...


As I said, you disappoint me here, Oz. There are at least three more examples die-hard Sunday people try to use here...I'm sure I could find them for you, if you don't know them.
Of course, they are all easily refuted, as I'm sure you also know...so maybe that's why you haven't bothered with them.
This is a lame argument, you know that, don't you, Oz? Come on, you are much smarter than this, I know you are...

 

[OzSpen]

Act 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Gosh, Oz...it looks a whole lot like they met on the first day of the week for a meal....more than likely a farewell banquet, since Paul was leaving the next day.
This is not proof that they met regularly on the first day of the week, although you aren't the first person to try to tell me that, nor, do I suspect that you will be the last.

The fact remains that Paul usually did his thing on Saturday...you know, when he went to the synagogue, "looking for Jews to convert."

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Now, here is the opportunity Paul has been waiting for, right? The Apostles will be meeting the next day, since it will be the first day of the week, and Paul will be there...he can invite these eager Gentiles, and...uh...but, he doesn't do that, does he? Why not?

Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Now, why do you suppose the city came together on the next sabbath, instead of the following day, since the following day would have been perfect...unless, of course, they weren't having regular meetings on the first day of the week, but rather kept the same sabbath they had been used to all of their lives, as Jesus had done while He was with them...


As I said, you disappoint me here, Oz. There are at least three more examples die-hard Sunday people try to use here...I'm sure I could find them for you, if you don't know them.
Of course, they are all easily refuted, as I'm sure you also know...so maybe that's why you haven't bothered with them.
This is a lame argument, you know that, don't you, Oz? Come on, you are much smarter than this, I know you are...

I think it's time you read a commentary or two about the meaning of what happened according to Acts 20:7 (NIV).

Obviously, the journalist is reporting on some sort of a demonstration...I'm not sure exactly what they are expecting to happen, you didn't really give me enough to go on. This is a narrative, of course.
Are we through playing children's games now, Oz?

I gave you a stack to work on because I provided you with a link to the article in the Brisbane Times. Don't you bother to read the links I give?

No game, Ma'am! We are trying to understand the interpretation of Scripture whether something is literal, figurative, metaphoric, poetry, etc. These are critical issues in reaching an interpretation of any text, but you want to brush them aside as 'playing children's games'.

Come on, The Barrd. When will you become serious about biblical interpretation? opcorn:

Oz

 

[Barrd]

I think it's time you read a commentary or two about the meaning of what happened according to Acts 20:7 (NIV).

The narrative tells me what happened, Oz.
Paul came in, he stayed for nearly two weeks, he was set to sail on Monday, and his friends got together and gave him a farewell banquet the evening before, which would have been Sunday.
It talks about the lights in the upper room, and poor, tired out Eutychus, who obviously became bored listening to Paul talk and talk and talk, on past midnight, and fell asleep. The story is more about the miracle of restoring him to life than anything else, and it is definitely not proof that the apostles had changed from Saturday to Sunday worship.

Not that it would matter...as we've discussed, the Old Covenant, with all those burdensome laws of Moses, had been "done away". The pure command as written by the finger of God does not call for worship, but only for a day of rest...

I gave you a stack to work on because I provided you with a link to the article in the Brisbane Times. Don't you bother to read the links I give?

In this case, no, I didn't bother. I'm not going to Brisbane any time soon, and I'm not terribly interested in some demonstration they've got going on there.
Obviously, like any other such story in any other such local newspaper, the journalist is writing a narrative.
To tell you the truth, Oz, it rather insulted me to have you ask me that. As if you honestly thought I might not know the difference between a narrative and poetry, or what "narrative poetry" is.

No game, Ma'am! We are trying to understand the interpretation of Scripture whether something is literal, figurative, metaphoric, poetry, etc. These are critical issues in reaching an interpretation of any text, but you want to brush them aside as 'playing children's games'.

Gosh, and to think that, all this time, I just figured it meant pretty much what it said. What a gullible little child I am...trusting that God has revealed the simple truth in His Bible...

Come on, The Barrd. When will you become serious about biblical interpretation? opcorn:

Whenever someone can prove to me that a simple little housewife can't understand it without having it "exegeted" for her according to proper "hermaneutics"... (I wonder what the writers of the various books would think?)

Notice, I'm breathing in.....and out....and in.....and out.... B)

In other words, I am not holding my breath...

 

[OzSpen]

The narrative tells me what happened, Oz.
Paul came in, he stayed for nearly two weeks, he was set to sail on Monday, and his friends got together and gave him a farewell banquet the evening before, which would have been Sunday.
It talks about the lights in the upper room, and poor, tired out Eutychus, who obviously became bored listening to Paul talk and talk and talk, on past midnight, and fell asleep. The story is more about the miracle of restoring him to life than anything else, and it is definitely not proof that the apostles had changed from Saturday to Sunday worship.

The Barrd,

This is what happens when you don't do your homework about the content of Acts 20:7.

In his Commentary on the Book of Acts, leading evangelical commentator, F F Bruce, wrote:

The statement that at Troas the travellers and their fellow-Christians dwelling in that port met together for the breaking of the bread "upon the first day of the week" is the earliest unambiguous evidence we have for the Christian practice of gathering together for worship on that day. The breaking of the bread probably denotes a fellowship meal in the course of which the Eucharist was celebrated (cf. Ch. 2:42) [ Bruce 1979:407-408].

Richard Lenski in his commentary wrote concerning Acts 20:7,

The purpose of the gathering was "to break bread." This was evidently not merely to dine together but to dine in the Agape which was followed by the Lord's Supper in the usual manner of this time (2:42; 1 Cor. 10:16) [Lenski1934:826].

Simon Kistemaker's commentary further affirms this emphasis in Acts 20:7:

"On the first day of the week" (i.e. Sunday; this is the first New Testament reference to Sunday worship) the Christians gathered for the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which was followed by the communal meal, the "love feast." In Acts, the expression to break bread means to celebrate communion (2:42; and see 2:46)' [Kistemaker1990:716].

So according to these three eminent, evangelical, NT commentators, your statement, 'it is definitely not proof that the apostles had changed from Saturday to Sunday worship', is shown to be false. I urge you to do more study of the passages on which you comment before making your kind of statement, which has been shown to be false.

According to Acts 20:7, these believers met together for the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, Sunday. the worship day was thus changed from the last day of the week (old covenant) to the first day of the week (new covenant) and Acts 20:7 is the first NT reference to such.

With this post, I give up doing the research work for you to demonstrate your false statement.

Oz

Works consulted
Bruce, F F 2979. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Commentary on the Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Kistemaker, S 1990. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1934. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (1934 Lutheran Book Concern; assigned 1944 to The Wartburg Press; assigned 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House).

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

This is what happens when you don't do your homework about the content of Acts 20:7.

In his Commentary on the Book of Acts, leading evangelical commentator, F F Bruce, wrote:

Richard Lenski in his commentary wrote concerning Acts 20:7,

Simon Kistemaker's commentary further affirms this emphasis in Acts 20:7:

So according to these three eminent, evangelical, NT commentators, your statement, 'it is definitely not proof that the apostles had changed from Saturday to Sunday worship', is shown to be false. I urge you to do more study of the passages on which you comment before making your kind of statement, which has been shown to be false.

According to Acts 20:7, these believers met together for the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week, Sunday. the worship day was thus changed from the last day of the week (old covenant) to the first day of the week (new covenant) and Acts 20:7 is the first NT reference to such.

With this post, I give up doing the research work for you to demonstrate your false statement.

Oz

Works consulted
Bruce, F F 2979. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: Commentary on the Book of the Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Kistemaker, S 1990. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1934. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (1934 Lutheran Book Concern; assigned 1944 to The Wartburg Press; assigned 1961 to Augsburg Publishing House).

You know, Oz, a very long time ago, there was this 12 year old kid...a peasant's kid, from the boonies (I think you'd say "the outback")...dressed in rags, cheap sandals on his feet....a backwards kid, Oz, who obviously had never seen the inside of a library in his life...
This kid wandered into an area where there were the elite scholars of his day...and he began to talk with them.
I'm guessing that, in the beginning, these learned men were amusing themselves with this peasant's kid...giving him a bit of their high-class education...you know the kind of thing I'm talking about, yeah?
But, before long, the kid had put the bunch of these scholars to shame...
Amazing, huh?
Not really...the kid, of course, was Jesus Christ. I'm sure you know the story...

Now, here we have these eminent scholars, with their fine education....and you want me to take their word for this unauthorized change from the Sabbath of God to the first day of the week...even though there are many examples of Paul worshiping on the sabbath, as he had been used to doing all of his life. I should ignore those plain scriptures, in favor of the opinion of these "learned men".

Why would I do that? Do these guys have any real explanation for why Paul spent so much time going to worship on the Sabbath? Or is it that lame "he was looking for Jews to convert" excuse?

More to the point, are these men inspired, the way Luke was when he wrote Acts? Are these opinions of theirs "God-breathed" the way that Luke's telling of the year and a half that Paul spent at Troas, going to the synagogue every Saturday is "God-breathed"?

Do we want to search the scriptures to see if these things be so, like those noble Bereans?

In my humble opinion, Oz, reading someone else's opinion is not "doing research work"...not really. Let's rather do what the Bereans did, and search the scriptures for the truth.

 

[OzSpen]

You know, Oz, a very long time ago, there was this 12 year old kid...a peasant's kid, from the boonies (I think you'd say "the outback")...dressed in rags, cheap sandals on his feet....a backwards kid, Oz, who obviously had never seen the inside of a library in his life...
This kid wandered into an area where there were the elite scholars of his day...and he began to talk with them.
I'm guessing that, in the beginning, these learned men were amusing themselves with this peasant's kid...giving him a bit of their high-class education...you know the kind of thing I'm talking about, yeah?
But, before long, the kid had put the bunch of these scholars to shame...
Amazing, huh?
Not really...the kid, of course, was Jesus Christ. I'm sure you know the story...

Now, here we have these eminent scholars, with their fine education....and you want me to take their word for this unauthorized change from the Sabbath of God to the first day of the week...even though there are many examples of Paul worshiping on the sabbath, as he had been used to doing all of his life. I should ignore those plain scriptures, in favor of the opinion of these "learned men".

Why would I do that? Do these guys have any real explanation for why Paul spent so much time going to worship on the Sabbath? Or is it that lame "he was looking for Jews to convert" excuse?

More to the point, are these men inspired, the way Luke was when he wrote Acts? Are these opinions of theirs "God-breathed" the way that Luke's telling of the year and a half that Paul spent at Troas, going to the synagogue every Saturday is "God-breathed"?

Do we want to search the scriptures to see if these things be so, like those noble Bereans?

In my humble opinion, Oz, reading someone else's opinion is not "doing research work"...not really. Let's rather do what the Bereans did, and search the scriptures for the truth.

The Barrd,

I also am a Berean (as in Acts 17:11 ESV) and I found that these 3 eminent evangelical commentators confirmed what I had concluded after reading and exegeting the Scriptures myself.

You don't want me to listen to these eminent commentators, but you want me to read and listen to your views. Don't you think there is a tad of hypocrisy in what you want me to do?

Oz

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

I also am a Berean (as in Acts 17:11 ESV) and I found that these 3 eminent evangelical commentators confirmed what I had concluded after reading and exegeting the Scriptures myself.

You don't want me to listen to these eminent commentators, but you want me to read and listen to your views. Don't you think there is a tad of hypocrisy in what you want me to do?

Oz

You went to these 3 eminent evangelical commentators.

I went to the Scriptures and found several occasions where Paul went to the synagogue, and one where he met with some women by the river, on the Sabbath.

You showed me one...count them, 1...example of Paul at a dinner on the night before he is to leave, and speaking on past midnight.

I'm not asking you to read and listen to my views, Oz. If I did that, I'd be as bad as all of these people who insist that I put down my Bible, and listen to their views...which, of course, is never going to happen. Ever.

No, Oz...I'm asking you to believe what the scriptures are plainly telling us. Paul worshiped on the Sabbath, just as he had done all of his life....just as Jesus had taught His Apostles to do, and sent them unto all nations to teach others to do.

Now, of course, you can choose not to believe these scriptures...that is up to you. I know that the popular thing is to try to fit the scriptures into the Sunday "sabbath"...but the reality that we all know, but don't talk about, is that it was the RCC that actually changed the day that God had set aside and sanctified to another day. It wasn't the apostles.

Something I've never heard anyone address in these debates...
The Jews at the time only had the one day off. Not like in our time, when we have the whole weekend off and can choose what we will do on Saturday and on Sunday. For those ancient people, the first day of the week was a work day. They weren't getting the day off to do whatever they wanted. And it wasn't an eight hour workday, either...try 12 hours, at least. They would have come wearily home, tired to the bone...
And remember, there were no modern conveniences. Everything had to be done by hand.
Everything.
Think of it...every drop of water the household used had to be carried in from the closest well...which could be as much as five or six miles away. Every. Single. Drop. That alone would be a full day's work for most of us in our time.

Now, when did they have time, during this regular workday, to be having a worship service?
Come to think about it, after putting in a full day of work...and I do mean work...where did they have the energy to have a worship service? They were doing well, I'd say, to find the energy to eat and tumble into bed...

 

[Wormwood]

I apologize I havent been following closely. Not sure how this turned into a discussion about narrative or which day of the week Christians worshipped on. I have to agree with Oz on the days Christians worshiped early on. Paul met with Jews on the Sabbath because this is when they gathered and he could go in and preach to them. However, church history and Scripture both indicate that Christians quickly began meeting on the first day of the week in commemoration of the resurrection.

“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.” (1 Corinthians 16:2, ESV)

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet” (Revelation 1:10, ESV)

Either way, I dont think the Lord really cares about days of worship. We are specifically told in Scripture not to make a fuss about days and such. We are not under law, but grace.

 

[Barrd]

I apologize I havent been following closely. Not sure how this turned into a discussion about narrative or which day of the week Christians worshipped on. I have to agree with Oz on the days Christians worshiped early on. Paul met with Jews on the Sabbath because this is when they gathered and he could go in and preach to them. However, church history and Scripture both indicate that Christians quickly began meeting on the first day of the week in commemoration of the resurrection.

“On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come.” (1 Corinthians 16:2, ESV)

“I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet” (Revelation 1:10, ESV)

Either way, I dont think the Lord really cares about days of worship. We are specifically told in Scripture not to make a fuss about days and such. We are not under law, but grace.

Yeah...

I'm not sure how we got side tracked off into these things, either, WW. However, kudos on finding one of those "proofs" that Sunday people insist on, but somehow, Oz didn't think to use on me.

1Co 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
1Co 16:2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
1Co 16:3 And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
1Co 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.

I've looked this scripture over, countless times, and no matter how many times I go over it, I do not see any evidence of a meeting to worship here. All this is saying is that Paul wants them to put some money back so that, when he comes, it will be ready to send on its way. It makes more sense that, since this is a workday, they should put back a part of their pay for the purpose.

Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

This is the very first time I've ever had anyone use this verse as a "proof text" that the early church met for worship on Sunday.
Do you see any worship service going on here?
It looks a whole lot to me as if John, who was in exile, was by himself when God called him, "to show him things that must shortly come to pass".
Where are you getting that this is a worship service?

I'm not even going to bother to argue with you about whether or not God cares about our worship.

There doesn't seem to be any point...

 

[Wormwood]

I've looked this scripture over, countless times, and no matter how many times I go over it, I do not see any evidence of a meeting to worship here. All this is saying is that Paul wants them to put some money back so that, when he comes, it will be ready to send on its way. It makes more sense that, since this is a workday, they should put back a part of their pay for the purpose.

That is possible, Barrd. I do not have a problem if you feel convicted that you should worship on Saturday. Personally, I think it is likely that this is referring to a formal gathering and collection that each should prepare for as they gather on Sundays. People were not paid in advance in the ancient world. Also, Paul seems to mention the first day and takes it for granted that this period would make perfect sense to his listeners, which, again would seem strange since people were not paid in advance.

We also see this line of thinking very early church history. The Didache reads:

On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.

Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Updated ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 267.

This also speaks to the point about "the Lord's Day." My point was not simply that John was "in the Spirit" on a Sunday (I imagine he was "in the Spirit" regularly). The point is that there seems to be a designated "title" for the first day of the week that denotes it as a day viewed with special reverence by these early Christians. I think if we combine the ideas that Paul encouraged Christians to set aside money on the first day of the week (and the Greek here indicates something of a Semitic idiom so its more than just a description of a day of the week), with the reference in Acts that they broke bread together on the first day of the week and that this day apparently had a designated title that Christians used, "the Lord's Day" then a very strong case starts to get made. On top of that, you add all the historical evidence that we have from some of the earliest documents as well as church leaders in the early 200s proclaiming that this was the practice of all the churches and you have a pretty strong case (at least I think so).

I'm not even going to bother to argue with you about whether or not God cares about our worship.

I am not arguing that God doesn't care about our worship. I am saying that I think God cares about our heart and not so much what day of the week it is when we gather to pray, encourage, teach and fellowship. I think this statement coincides with the teaching of the NT.

“Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.” (Colossians 2:16, NIV84)

“One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” (Romans 14:5–10, NIV84)

 

[Barrd]

That is possible, Barrd. I do not have a problem if you feel convicted that you should worship on Saturday. Personally, I think it is likely that this is referring to a formal gathering and collection that each should prepare for as they gather on Sundays. People were not paid in advance in the ancient world. Also, Paul seems to mention the first day and takes it for granted that this period would make perfect sense to his listeners, which, again would seem strange since people were not paid in advance.

Perhaps, WW, but I doubt it, because the Apostles had been worshiping on the Sabbath all of their lives. Why would they suddenly change the day...and to a workday? It doesn't make any sense that they would do that.
No one said that people were paid in advance...perhaps they were being paid for the week before...perhaps their employer didn't want to give them their money just before they had a day off, for fear they'd spend it all and have nothing the rest of the week..

More likely, they were getting paid by the day. Paul wants them to put back a bit of their first day's wages. Again, there is no hint that this is referring to a meeting...you'd have to "exegete" that into the text...which is, I understand, poor "hermaneutics"....

This also speaks to the point about "the Lord's Day." My point was not simply that John was "in the Spirit" on a Sunday (I imagine he was "in the Spirit" regularly). The point is that there seems to be a designated "title" for the first day of the week that denotes it as a day viewed with special reverence by these early Christians. I think if we combine the ideas that Paul encouraged Christians to set aside money on the first day of the week (and the Greek here indicates something of a Semitic idiom so its more than just a description of a day of the week), with the reference in Acts that they broke bread together on the first day of the week and that this day apparently had a designated title that Christians used, "the Lord's Day" then a very strong case starts to get made. On top of that, you add all the historical evidence that we have from some of the earliest documents as well as church leaders in the early 200s proclaiming that this was the practice of all the churches and you have a pretty strong case (at least I think so).

Then there is the fact that the Lord Himself, referred to Himself as "Lord of the Sabbath".
I'm not sure but that "The Lord's Day" would not refer to the day that He named, Himself. If He is, as He said "Lord of the Sabbath", then "The Lord's Day" is the Sabbath Day, just as it had always been.
Now, I realize that 200 years is not a long time when you consider the stretch of time between Jesus and us.
However, it is a very long time when you consider the life spans of the people involved.
My own country has not been around much longer than 200 years...but there have been a lot of changes in the way we do things and the way we think about things in that amount of time.

I am not arguing that God doesn't care about our worship. I am saying that I think God cares about our heart and not so much what day of the week it is when we gather to pray, encourage, teach and fellowship. I think this statement coincides with the teaching of the NT.

I can't argue with that, WW. -_-

 

[StanJ]

Do you understand that we very often do have our services on Saturday? It depends on what day our blue collar workers have off that week.
More to the point, do you understand that the actual commandment doesn't say a single word about worship?
You can read, can't you?

Well I guess that shows you don't really KNOW the commandments you cherish, and have never read Exodus 35?

 

[StanJ]

Whenever someone can prove to me that a simple little housewife can't understand it without having it "exegeted" for her according to proper "hermaneutics"

This isn't the IMF Barrd, and you have to WANT to learn, regardless of your personal feelings towards the teacher.