Tradition (digression) came slowely to God's people. If one did not have the blinder of the institution on he would have no reason to read into Acts 20:7 more than what is there. Because the first day of the week by tradition is when people meet for formal *worship* this scripture is taken out of context and used for at least three traditions. I shall list them:

1) That Paul preached a sermon.....when in fact the word *preach* in that scripture means dialogue. Talking one with the other.

2) That the bread there is the Lord's supper. The breaking of bread was a common meal. The people came to give Paul a *send off* and had pot luck.

3) That Paul met with them because it was the first day of the week and that was when the Christians came together to take communion and hear a sermon. The scripture does not bear that out.

Scriptures are taken out of context because of preceived ideas brought about by tradition.

Nelta

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Answers

Please give us the name of the Greek lexicon where you came up with this meaning of the word "preach?"

-- Anonymous, June 15, 2000

Ben....

I will admit, I reacted. However, when you have been as guilty in the past of butchering the Greek language in the way Nelta has historically done....it was a small leap to guess she was "taking neo- orthodox" liberties again.

However, I can assure you....I will see what my lexicons turn up today.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Well Ben....

It appears my "knee jerk" reaction was correct.

In order to forward Nelta's agenda, she inserts a word that is not even in the text.

She states...."the word *preach* in that verse...etc."

Problem is.....the word *preach* is not there.

In fact, the word you described Ben....never shows up in any lexicon under the designation...."preach."

The words translated "preach" most often have to do with "teaching" and/or "proclaiming the good news"...(which, by the way, is one of the reasons I do not believe the Bible draws a hard distinction like we often do between preaching and teaching.....but that's another thread).

Problem is.....there is no word *preach* there.

I've never seen anyone use Acts 20:7 as a proof text for preaching on Sundays. It's a Nelta "straw man."

What Paul did was teach the Apostles doctrine. However that is done....."in talking with them" as the text states.....or proclaiming and teaching, as it states elsewhere.....is really irrelevant....as long as it gets done.

BTW....I understand your cross-cultural preaching experience. During my 10 years of working in Jamacia......it was always quite a "culture shock" to come back to my American congregation. "Dead" is certainly the word that describes the feeling. In Jamaica....they talk to you during the sermon.....read the Scripture when you read it......and "Amen" it continuously. Compare that to an American congregation where if someone says..."Amen".....everyone looks to see who it was. (ha!)

But....that is not a condemnation.....just a cultural difference.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Ben....

OK....I'll buy that. To find out the core basic beliefs of Nelta....research the topic of "neo-orthodoxy." When you do....then you will find out why some of her views trouble you.

Nelta...

Please do not make me ask Duane to search the archives for ALL THE MANY TIMES you have been asked for Scripture to support your views and all the sudden.....you never show up again....for a while....and then when you do.....it's on a whole different subject.

Have some intellectual honesty.....at least.

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Ben.....

Neo-orthodoxy takes many "nuances".....that spring from the mainstream of thought espoused by the men you mentioned.

Nelta set the stage many months ago (before you ever came on the scene)....by undergirding her beliefs, not with Scripture.....but with the writings of a well known "neo orthodox" theologian that she quoted.

On the contrary.....neo orthodoxy is very "anti establishment"....and very high on "experiential, subjective" religion.

This explains why Nelta fails to answer anyone with Scripture.

Nelta constantly butchers the Greek language in favor instead of giving "modern linguistic meanings" which, as you know, have nothing to do with the meaning of the text. She is famous for injecting her subjective feelings into the text, a classic neo-orthodox position.

One is often noted by the sources they quote. When she started off with the writings of that particular individual (I forget his name).....and then she proceeds to follow that line of thinking in all she does.....one must then assume that they espouse that view.

That's the way I see it.

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Exactly John.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Any of them, I'm afraid, Danny. (Did you look up the verse or were you just reacting to her?) The word used in Acts 20:7 is DIALOGIZOMAI, from which we get the English word "dialogue" and which had a similar meaning in the Koini Greek. The word used in 20:11, however, is HOMILEO. This is the word from which we get our English word "homiletics" (the art of preaching). At that time it still had a broader meaning and could mean to "speak, converse", etc. But it was probably already beginning to have a more specific meaning, because Arndt and Gingrich give, as one of the meanings for the related noun, HOMILIA, "a speech, a sermon."

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Nelta,

In response to your posting itself, I'm not sure if you are questioning only the "required content" for Christian meetings, or also the day for such meetings.

I think there is support here for the first day of the week being the day of Christian meetings and with that being the reason why they were together on that day, especially if you take it together with verse 6. They waited there in Troas for 7 days, then had their gathering on the last day before he left. Perhaps it was mainly to say farewell, as you seem to suggest -- or could it be that Paul deliberately delayed his departure until then because that was when they would meet together. Sometimes in my travels I have deliberately scheduled a stopover in a place to last over a Sunday so that I can meet with the brethren in that place.

By itself there probably isn't enough in these two verses to have any bearing on the question. But when you take it together with I Cor. 16, where they were to put aside their offerings on the first day of the week, John's reference in Revelation to "the Lord's Day", and the fact that other early Christian writings are quite clear that this was the early tradition of the church -- to meet on Sunday, I think there is a reasonable case for assuming that this was not just a special meeting to say farewell to Paul, but was also their regular weekly meeting.

As for the "communion", the phrase "breaking of bread" appears to have been used in early days for BOTH a regular meal and the "Lord's Supper", so there is an ambiguity here that makes it difficult to determine just what they did that night. Since the early tradition seems to have been to combine the two into one "Love Feast" (the "Agapi"), my own feeling is that probably this was what happened here. They gathered on Sunday (or Saturday night, if they followed Jewish time reckoning), (a) to have their regular weekly "get-together", (b) to hear Paul and to say farewell to him, and (c) to eat the "Agapi" which combined a fellowship meal with the commemoration of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection. But I agree that there is not enough here alone to actually PROVE all that.

As for whether Paul "preached" or "dialogued", (a) if he spoke that long he probably did both, and (b) I'm inclined, both from knowing "non-Western" cultures, and from what we see in some other Scriptures, to think that even a "sermon" was usually not a "monologue" in New Testament times, but included "audience" response and participation. I always have difficulty getting adjusted to American audiences when I go back to the States on "furlough". They always seem so "dead", compared to what I am used to in the congregation I serve here.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Hello Benjamin,

You wrote much to think about. Just a few comments if you don't mind. First, there is nothing in the scriptures that tell us to meet on a certain day. That has come about from tradition as far as I can tell. Because we by tradition have met and called that a special day (the Lord's Day) we look at the scripture a certain way. I can't believe God would give us something that is not clear-cut.

You mentioned 1 Cor. 16:1-2. If we went to that scripture without our practice it would be simply Paul telling the individuals how to save up their money for the poor. They had asked him about it. They were to keep the money *by himself* saving it up. We don't know why he used the first day of the week for their compiling their individual *treasury*. But because we have the practice of one day being a day of worship we intrepret that scripture to mean the people met specifically on that day and then go further and believe they brought their money together into a common treasury as is practiced today.

My only point is we have taken those two scriptures out of context and fitted them into our traditions. What happened after the deaths of the apostles (as Paul predicted) was digression and not the teachings OF the apostles.

Thanks,

Nelta

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Danny,

The King James of Acts 20:7 does say that Paul "preached" to them, and the Living Bible says that "we gathered for a communion service, with Paul preaching." Fortunately, most other translations use words that are somewhat more accurate -- "discoursed", "talked with", etc.

Like you, I have never personally heard the account in Acts 20 used as a "proof text" for PREACHING on Sunday, but have heard it used to as supporting evidence for having Sunday meetings and Sunday communion. (My father taught very strongly that it was a sin to have the Lord's Supper on any other day but Sunday, and Acts 20 was the main passage he based it on.)

With that as background I could see how someone COULD use it to "prove" a Sunday sermon, and gave Nelta the benefit of the doubt of assuming that maybe she actually had run into that kind of thinking. I do know a lot of people feel it is absolutely essential to have a sermon as part of their "Sunday worship", and I can't think, off-hand, of any other Scripture that they could use for Biblical support of such an idea.

Nelta,

Many years ago I used to use the pen-name "Iconoclast", because I saw so many traditions that were nothing but traditions and I felt it was my duty to knock them all down. Fortunately, I've mellowed some since then. Not all traditions are bad. Some are good. Most are simply neutral. But having some traditions is necessary. The important thing is to periodically re-examine WHAT we do and WHY we do the things we do to see which are really based on the Word of God and which are "ONLY traditions". Then, of those that are only traditions we need to seriously consider WHICH are worth keeping and WHICH should be changed or discarded. Just because something is "only" a tradition does NOT necessarily mean it is bad or must be discarded.

I've only been browsing in this forum for a few months, so I don't know the background to some of the things Danny has said about you. All I can go on is what I've seen in these few months. In this time you have questioned a variety of the traditional practices of Restoration Movement and/or Evangelical churches. Some of the things you have questioned are things I find worrisome myself. Others seem, to me, somewhat trivial and not worth bothering about. That's only my subjective opinion, however. What bothers me is that there SEEMS to me to be an attitude behind some of what you do that "IF it's only a tradition it MUST be wrong and MUST be discarded." I don't think that's necessarily true -- not as long as we keep clear in our thinking, and especially in our teaching, which are traditions and which are Bible doctrine.

You also seem to follow "hit and run" tactics. You make your attack on the particular tradition -- often in the form of a parody -- but when others respond, you usually seem to disappear. (Thank you for coming back, this time, to respond to what I said.) I don't blame you for ignoring those who ignore the real point of what you are saying to make personal attacks on you. (I need to learn, myself, not to take Lee Saffold's irrational twisting of what I say quite so seriously.) But there have been some serious responses that never got an answer from you either.

-- Anonymous, June 16, 2000

Benjamin,

Thanks for responding. I don't intend to take time to *take up for myself* but will respond to your suggestion that I don't answer some who respond to my posts. I feel it is a sin to do so. When someone cuts another down for what is written instead of responding with scripture for his belief then we are aiding him in his lack of the fruits of the Spirit. We become enablers. A person who shows a lack of the fruits of the Spirit will not be saved because that breaks the commands of God, and seems to show there is pride in his/her life.

As for our being able to follow traditions I would just make a few comments. Traditions that are taught as truth is what I am against. Preachers who preach on subjects that are not biblical or on scriptures taken out of context (as truth) are leading people astray. Take for example the taking up of the money in a common treasury. This is taught as a requirement of God. Now, if one wishes to pool his money with others for specific events (such as giving to the poor) that is not going against the scriptures. But when he is taught to give a certain amount each Sunday *because God said to*....then he is being led astray on what God said to do.

Same for meeting on Sunday. We can meet anywhere, anytime with fellow Christians. It is when we put one day above another and teach that that is the way God wants it...when He didn't give that command, then we are adding to His word.

How can it be done? Simply teach the people the Biblical way and let them know it is their choice. However, I see another danger in this. One gives up his responsibility when he gives into the common treasury and gives up his stewardship.

I use the above illustration but it applies to all our traditions. God is a jealous God and will not condone teaching something as truth when it did not come from him.

Thanks,

Nelta Brock http://members.xoom.com/atlen/

-- Anonymous, June 17, 2000

Nelta,

I agree with you very strongly that we must not elevate human traditions to the level of something ordained by God. (I think the Catholic church teaches that the traditions of the church -- specifically their church -- are on an equal standing with the Bible, but most others reject that view.) I am also very much against people misusing Scripture to "prove" that certain traditions are ordained by God when, in fact, they are nothing but traditions, perhaps supported by a few inferences based on flimsy Scriptural evidence. I have even been known, myself, to challenge the teaching of traditions I believe in and practice myself if I feel that the person teaching them is misusing the Scripture in the way he/she is teaching it. As I said before, some traditions are good -- and we cannot live without some "traditions" in our lives. But we should not confuse the practices that are really based on the Bible, practices that are based on "necessary inference" but not on a direct "thus saith the Lord", and practices that are ONLY traditions, through and through. I think each of these categories needs to be kept distinct and treated differently. My attitude on a lot of church traditions is, if it doesn't hurt, and especially if it seems to help, then by all means continue, but don't claim Biblical authority for it that doesn't exist.

With regard to elevating one day above another, however, let's keep in mind what Paul said, specifically about this and related issues:

"Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but anohter man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not lookd down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

"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 judgement seat."

(Romans 14:1-10, NIV)

Danny,

I must confess to being a little confused by your recurrent reference to Nelta's views as "Neo-orthodox". I've always associated neo-orthodoxy with the views of Karl Barth, Bultmann, Niebuhr, Tillich, etc. Despite my "name-dropping", I haven't actually read any of these men's works directly (except for a TINY bit of Barth and Tillich, many years ago), but numerous reference books give an overview of some of their main beliefs, including such teachings as that the Bible is not, itself, God's revelation to man, but only a "witness" to revelation, that the Bible is not inerrant, that many of the key events in Scripture are "myth" or "saga", with a meaning that is true, without the story itself necessarily being literally true, that sin is primarily the violation of persons (rather than being mainly disobedience to God), etc.

I haven't yet seen any ideas like these in what I have seen of what Nelta has posted (though perhaps she has supported such doctrines in things she posted before I started following this forum). On the contrary, her questioning of whether or not various traditions are really supported by Scripture seems to me to convey a respect for the literal inspiration of the Word. (But, as I said, I've mainly only seen what she has posted since about February.) My *impression* of what neo-orthodox theologians believe and practice has always been that they maintain the "traditions" of the church, while denying most of the reality behind them.

I'm not necessarily defending Nelta's views or her approach, but a lot of what I've seen people saying in response to her postings seems, to me, far out of proportion to what she has said, and often to have been said in reaction to her, rather than to what she has actually said. So I'm trying to understand why.

(BTW, thanks for what you said in the "It's time for a serious debate ..." thread, regarding Lee Saffold's response to me.)

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Hello again, Ben!

First to the name calling some on this list throw at me. I don't get too upset about that because God said vengence is His...He will repay. In fact, it would be a sin if I answered by rethrowing the darts. That is not God's way. Now for one part of your post.

< "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgement on disputable matters. >>

This scripture is used a lot in the kingdom today to have others accept the traditions of digression. We are to accept those who are weak...and there are many of them because there are soooo many followers of mere men. Therefore they are weak and we should accept them and at the same time stand up for scripture.

One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but anohter man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not lookd down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? >>

We must not judge.. The scriptures judge. God judges. He gave His word and when we stick with His word He is doing the judging. << <>

We are still talking about the weak who need to be built up in the faith, are we not?

<<"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. >>

God is dealing with individuals here, not groups. For one to decide to set aside a day for doing something for the LOrd, he has God's OK on it. When a religious system is set in place based on what God told the individual he could do, this is misusing the scriptures. ISTM

Nelta

-- Anonymous, June 19, 2000

Btw, I read an excerpt posted on usenet news several weeks ago, from a Pulpit commentary. The commentary said that originally, the homily was a disucssion between the church leader and the congregation. Anyone could be asked to read scripture. People would ask questions and there would be a discussion. The book said the practice continued in smaller churches outside of the big cities for hundreds of years.

'Homiletics' may refer to the art of preaching a non-interactive sermon now. That doesn't mean the Greek word in the 1st century meant that. Some later definitions may reflect current usage.

We know that in this case, Paul was having a discussion. The tradition of hearing only one non-interactive one-man sermon every Sunday is not from scripture. The scriptures do give us an order for church meetings. See I Corinthians 14.

Btw, John's reference to 'the Lord's day' is not a perfect argument for meeting on the first day of the week. Some SDA's say John's vision was on the sabbath. Notice that hte passage does not specify what day was 'the Lord's day'. The phrase may be a reference to the exchatalogical 'day of the Lord,' a common phrase in OT writings of the same visionary genre. We might just have doctrinal debates because the KJV rendered it 'the Lord's day' instead of 'the day of the Lord' in this one instance.

Is there any idea to believe from scripture that communion was ever celebrated in the first century other than as being incorporated into a full meal? Passover was celebrated as a meal. The Lord's Supper was held on a WEEK NIGHT as an actual meal.

'Breaking bread' refered to eating. That should tell us something about the Lord's supper. The saints came together to eat. This was common practice in the first century. The celebrated the Lord's SUPPER (look up the Greek word.) The Corinthians were eating a full meal, but they were being excessive. The Bible also mentions 'love feasts.'

Keeping in mind that early Christians met togehter to eat adds light to a lot of passage. Paul warned about disunity inthe body in relation to the Lord's Supper in I Corinthains 12. When we consider the practice of the early church of eating the Lord's Supper together, Paul's concern about Peter's actions in Antioch makes more sense. Peter was not eating with the Gentiles. The church normally came together to eat, but Peter wasn't eating with the Gentiles, and even Barnabas followed his example there for a little while. Remember the importance of no division in the body in relation to the Lord's supper in I Corinthians 11?

Consider also Paul's teaching concerning not eating with certain types of sinners called brothers in I Corinthians 5. This was in the context of Christ being our Passover, and celebrating the feast not with sinful unleavenness.

I have a question? Where is the evidence that the early church would ahve celebrated the Lord's Supper as a little snack late Sunday morning? A microscopic sip of wine and a tiny cracker? What scholarly sources I've read bits and pieces of demonstrate a belief that the earliest Christians ate a meal together. The portions got smaller over time.

Remember the early Christians had Jesus' example of eating a meal on that weeknight. They didn't have centuries of medeval tradition or Protestant tradition to fall back on.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Isn't the point of the Lord's "supper" not the eating of a meal, but the remembrance of the Lord's sacrifice? And to that effect, does it really matter how much we eat, whether it be a 7-course meal or a wafer and cup?

Incidentally, Luke records that Jesus instituted the eating of the loaf and drinking from the cup after the Passover supper had concluded, not during it, setting it apart.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Hello, All,

I am posting the following from another site, not because I agree with all that he says (since I don't understand Hebrew, nor do I even know anyone who does), but to just throw it out for all of you to comment on, and for all of us to learn from.

Also, it has a chart on the last week of the Lord's life, which agrees with one which Jack Prentice sent to me, explaining the multiple Sabbaths that week. (I hope the chart comes through).

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><

Well, it looks like it didn't copy and paste correctly. I'll be back with it.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- What is wrong with celebrating Easter instead of Pesach? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- I heave read many times through my Bible, from Genesis through to Revelations and searched the Scriptures, using an "On-line Bible" in the English, Hebrew and Greek language. In all this, I have never found a statement anywhere, which is saying that Yahuweh our Creator, through His Prophets or Apostles, has changed the date nor the original meaning of the Pesach, also called Passover. On the contrary Ezekiel 45:21 establishes this institution even past our time, in the still to come future. How did we get our Easter? In the middle East, planting, sowing and harvest are in Winter time, the Summer is dry and hot, and nothing grows. That is why the pagan Gods where thought to die at the end of Winter and were re-born again at the beginning of Winter. Such a God was "Tammuz" whose magic sign the "T" is still with us in the form of the cross. When these Gods supposedly died, there was much wailing, which was an abomination to Yahuweh. Ezek.8:14-15. Mithraism, which flourished during the late Roman empire was a similar religion. The magic cross was also an important ingredient of this religion. Christianity, to make itself accepted, was blended in with this religion during the third and fourth century. Therefore much of their practices are still in Christianity to day. Western paganism was different. Spring was celebrated with new-life rituals. The influence of both Eastern and Western paganism penetrated the early Church. The Church in the second and third century, influenced by Satan's hate for everything related to Yahuweh, wanted out of animosity and political reasons, to do away with Jewish customs.

They did abandon the by Yahuweh instituted Jewish feasts in favor of the pagan feasts. The feasts of the dying Gods in Spring and the re birth of Gods in Winter There was much debate and bickering about the celebration of the "Pesach" among the early Churches. In the year 325 Emperor Constantine convened the council of Nicaea, to put a halt to the bickering among the Church leaders. Pesach was one of the issues and a resolution was arrived at and signed by the emperor Constantine. An excerpt of this follows: Constantine, august, to the Churches. Having experienced, in the flourishing state of public affairs, the greatness of the divine goodness I though it especially incumbent on me to endeavor that the happy multitudes of the Catholic [i.e. the universal] Church should preserve one faith, be united in unfeigned love, and harmoniously join their devotions to the Almighty God. When the question arose concerning the most holy day of Easter, it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be celebrated on the same day by all, in every place. For what can be more beautiful, what more venerable and becoming, than that this festival, from which we receive hope of immortality, should be suitably observed by all in one and the same order. it seemed to every one a most unworthy thing that we should follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this most holy solemnity, who, polluted wretches! Having stained their hands with a nefarious crime, are justly blinded in their minds. It is fit, therefore, that, rejecting the practice of this people, we should perpetuate to all future ages the celebration of this rite, in a more legitimate order. Let us then have nothing in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews. We have received another method from the Savior. A more lawful and proper course is open to our most holy religion. As it is necessary that this fault should be so amended that we may have nothing in common with the usage of these parricides and murderers of our Lord; and as that order is most convenient which is observed by all the churches of the West, as well as those of the southern and northern parts of the world, and also by some in the East, it was judged therefore to be most equitable and proper, and I pledge myself that this arrangement should meet your approbation, viz. That the custom which prevails with one consent in the city of Rome, and throughout all [list of countries] .., and to have no fellowship with the perjury of the Jews. And, to sum up the whole in a few words, it was agreeable to the common judgment of all, that the most holy feast of Easter should be celebrated on one and the same day. . it is your duty to receive and establish the arguments already stated, and the observance of the most holy day; ---- end of Constantine's letter ---- He writes: " We have received another method from the Savior." If any one can show this from the Bible, he must be a wizzard. In this letter, Constantine officially establishes an anti-Judaic foundation for the doctrine and practice of the Church, and declares that contempt for the Jews, and separation from them, is the only proper Christian attitude.

They decided therefor that it should be celebrated with the pagan Easter (beginnings) feasts. They made an elaborate date scheme so that Easter never would coincide with Pesach. Does their Easter, which is not commanded by God, fits the literal Scripture? In no way. First let us consider times. According to Yeshua in John 11:9 there are twelve hours in a day. The Hebrew Yom and Greek humera usually mean day as opposite to night. Unless they are preceded by an ordinal number, then they depict a 24- hour period. The Jewish way of determining a day, is taken from the Tanach, it is from sunset till sunset. The creation started with the night (darkness) after this came the light. Genesis 1 puts it " evening was morning was one day." Therefore the Shabbat, starts at sunset of Yomshishi (Friday) and ends at sunset of YomShabbat.

Let us first put all known facts together. Nisan 14 called the "preparation day," the day on which the Pesach lamb was killed, was the day of execution According to the Jewish calendar this day can never be on a Tuesday, Thursday or a Sunday The next day, Nisan 15, the first day of Unleavened bread, is a special or high Shabbat Between this Shabbat and Shavuot or Pentecost, are seven weekly Shabbats The weekly Shabbat after the High Shabbat is called the First Shabbat (of the seven) The Greek culture had no Shabbat so there was no word for it in their language. The New Testament Greek uses an Hebrew idiom, Sabbatou for Shabbat and Sabbaton for Shabbats Now let us have a look at some facts from scripture. In Matthew 12:40 Yeshuah literally says: "Three days and three nights," in the grave. Scripture in Matt.16:21, eop, clearly shows that the Messiah shall rise on the "Third day," meaning in the third 24-hour period. To find out when this "third day" was, we have to continue looking at the Scriptures. Unfortunately some mass-deception has been done in our translations. Sabbaton has been translated as "first day of the week". This was done to make the decision from the Nicene council acceptable to the common people and also to make the shift from Shabbat to pagan Sunday acceptable. I shall show the Greek and the proper translation. Matt. 28:1 "Opse de sabbaton tee epiphoskousee eis mian sabbaton elthen Mariam . . ." Translated: "Later after the Shabbats at the dawn of the first one of the Shabbats came Mary . . ." This was the first of the seven Shabbats till pentecost.

Mark 16:1 " Kai dialenomenou sabbatou he Maria . . ." "And whenn the Shabbat was past Mary the Magdalene . . ." This vers showed that after the Shabbat, this must have been the First day of Unleavened bread, they went to buy spices. The next day they went to the grave as shown in: Mark 16:2; " kai lian proi tee mia ton sabbaton . . ." Translated as: "and very early on the first of the Shabbats " Luke 24:1 "tee de mia ton sabbaton orthrou batheos . . ." "and on the first of the Shabbats while still very early" John 20:1 "Tee de mia ton sabbaton . . ." " Now on the first of the Shabbats . . ." Now these Scriptures spell it out very clearly Yeshua arose in the night of the first, of the seven Shabbats till Pentecost. Before the day time. Yes, according to several Jewish sources, people were allowed to tend to a deceased person on a Shabbat. Having determined the day of resurrection, we can easely find the day of execution by going back three nights and days. This is on a Wednesday. The time frame looks like this date day happening period pagan day Nisan 14 Preparation day Tried, Executed, buried day 1 ... Wednesday Nisan 15 High Shabbat in the grave night 1 1st 24 hrs Wed/Thu Nisan 15 High Shabbat in the grave day 2 ... Thursday Nisan 16 Normal day in the grave night 2 2nd 24 hrs Thur/Fri Nisan 16 Normal day in the grave day 3 ... Friday Nisan 17 7th day Shabbat in the grave and rissen night 3 3d 24 hrs Fri/Sat Nisan 17 Shabbat Women to the grave Early ... Saturday Nisan 18 1st day of week Not the day of resurrection day . . Sunday This is what happened. Yeshuah died on Nisan 14, "preparation-day", the day the Pesach lamb had to be slaughtered He was buried in the day time, just before sunset, when the Shabbat started. ( day one in the grave) Then came the night, which was the beginning of Nisan 15, the High Shabbat, the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. (first night time period in the grave) 1st 24 hour period. Then the day part of the Shabbat, on Nisan 15. ( day two in the grave) The Night time of Nisan 16. second 24 hr period(two night periods in the grave). The Day time of Nisan 16. (Three day periods in the grave) . The night time of Nisan 17 third 24 hr period(Three night periods in the grave)Resurrected during the night. This to literally fulfill the 3 days and 3 nights in the grave and the resurrection on the 3d day (24 Hr period). Yeshuah rose on the Saturday before daytime and not on the Sunday.

According to Lev.23:10-11 Firstfruits should be on the day after the shabbat that comes after the High shabbat on nisan 15. This would have been the first day of the week (Pagan sunday). However, there are and were some arguments about this among the Jewish leaders. From various sources, like Josephus, it becomes apparent that in the days of Yeshua, Firstfruits was on nisan 16, the day after the high shabbat. The New Testament writers therefore took this in account, by starting the count down to Pentacost. The Shabbat after the high shabbat on nisan 15 was therefore called the first shabbat. According to Scripture, they found the empty grave on the first of the Shabbats. That is at the first light of the day. After the Shabbat of the first day of unleavened bread, there was an other Shabbat. This only could have been the seventh day Shabbat and the first of seven Shabbats till Shuavot (Pentecost). The women had to wait till the Shabbat of Unleavened-bread was finished, to be able to buy spices and make preparations. That is why they went to the grave the next day, the second day after the High Shabbat, which happened to be the seventh day Shabbat. To put this synopsis in our pagan way of naming the week days: Nisan 14 , execution day, must have been on Wednesday. Nisan 15, Passover High Shabbat, on Thursday. Nisan 16, on Friday. Nisan 17, Seventday Shabbat, on Saturday. This schedule is possible within the Jewish calendar. However, this schedule does not fit the picture the Church gives us. They already have a hard time explaining a Friday execution and a Sunday morning resurection, taken in account three days and three nights. However, the foregoing is plain, straight forward from the Bible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Bible nowhere suggests that the meaning of Pesach has changed to a remembrance of the dead and resurrection of the Messiah. Nor does it suggest the Apostles and their followers celebrated it in this way. We should remember on Pesach the significance of this remembrance, on the day's Yahuweh set apart for it. It is to remind us that Yahuweh uses the Blood of an innocent unblemished lamb to set His possession free. We might also commemorate on that day that Yeshuah the Messiah was our Pesach lamb.1Cor. 5:7. We should also on Pesach have our Seder. Whereby we should incorporate the new sacrificial rite instituted by the Messiah. The remembrance of His broken body with the bread and His shed blood with the cup of thanksgiving. Matt.26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The foregoing is also discussed in my book: A personal God or religious traditions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Have a Good afternoon

Use button to select article. Only 'on line'. Use them 'off line', when you have copied all articles to the same directory on your system, including the script file: buttons.js.

Last updated 07/27/2000 13:23:46

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Drat.

The chart didn't come through nicely. It came through to my e-mail when I forwarded it to myself. You all understand why that happened ~ I'm sure it has to do with HTML! ~ everything I don't understand seems to have to do with HTML.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

The person who is the author of the above is from the Netherlands, by way of Australia, so his expressions are different than ours.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

About communion being a PART of the meal eaten with the disciples:

The gospels show Jesus breaking the bread AS they were eating. Luke shows Jesus telling the disciples to divide a cup of wine among themselves. HE would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until he drank of it anew with them in His Father's kingdom. Then, after the meal, he distributed a cup and siad it wwas the New Testament in his blood.

One might interpret this to mean that the bread is a part of the love feast meal, and the cup is passed around after the supper is over, at the end of the meal. Or, one might consider the meal during the supper to also be a part of 'the cup' part of the ordinance.

Whatever the case, I don't see any Biblical evidence for separating communion from the love feast. Why follow the ritualistic practricism of Roman Catholicism and the Post-Reformation period? Why not just do communion the way the New Testament church did it?

Has anyone ever done a Christian Passover seder with Passover as a part of it. I've done this once or twice. I think it has become a bit popular with some churches because of the influence of the messianic movement. Some even think that the Jews who started practicing the seder again borrowed some of their practices from Christian Jews, and that this is the reason for the breaking of middle of the three matza's and hiding it.

The Christian Passover Seder I took part in, in some ways, may have been more similar to New Testament Holy Communion than the ritualized way of doing it with tiny portions that goes on in churches all over the world.

-- Anonymous, August 01, 2000

Why not just do communion the way the New Testament church did it?

Link, try to get this. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOESN'T SAY HOW THEY DID IT.

The Passover with Jesus and the disciples is NOT the proper teacher . . . unless you are willing to say that the church is bound to hold a weekly seder service, with all the bells and whistles.

All First Corinthians tells us is that the church in Corinth, or at least some of them, got together on occasion for a meal, and included in that meal some worship and an observance of the Lord's Supper, Within that instruction, he breaks out a little section speaking about breaking the bread and separating the cup for individual consumption. But the rest of the passage is clearly talking of eating a full-fledged meal together.

Now, is that meal their weekly worship service, or weekly church gathering? WE DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T SAY. IT DOESN'T IMPLY. It says nothing of HOW OFTEN it happened, or about WHEN it happened, or about WHERE it happened.

You CANNOT make a rule for the church where there is no rule given in the scriptures.

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000

Just pick up any book on church history and early church practive written by a reputable scholar. There is a pretty good chance that the author will write that the early church celebrated communion as a love feast.

Paul does not say that Holy Communion was sometimes served along side a meal. The disciples used to meet together and eat a meal together. This was an example that Christ left them. The bread was broken, remembering Christ's body. A cup of wine was passed around, remembering Christ's blood.

Paul rebuked the Corinthians about the way they were trying to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The Supper they ate was not the Lord's Supper, because of their divisions and disrespectful practices. But the meal they ate together was _supposed to be_ the Lord's Supper.

Read the passage carefully. Paul doesn't talk about having Communion as separate from the supper. Really read it.

Remember that the disciples didn't have our cultural background of the solemn ritual of the Lord's Supper to draw from. they ate the Lord's supper with Jesus, and as Jesus instructed, remembered the Lord. We see that after that, Christians used to meet together and eat a meal together.

Their experience, and the model they had, for Holy Communion was the bread during the meal as a remembrance of the Lord's body, and the cup as a rememberance of his blood. We must understand the Lord's Supper FROM WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE AND NOT FROM OUR CHURCH EXPERIENCE OR THE PRACTICE OF THE Roman Catholic Church or Protestantism Only later did the portions get smaller.

Notice Paul's reference to the Lord's table in reference to this issue.

I didn't say we have to have a Passover seder each week which follows the details of Jewish tradition.

Centuries later, the portions had gotten smaller

-- Anonymous, August 02, 2000