Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127193 | ||
Hello Ancient, You said " I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine." So can I, but you were on a tangent based on slim evidence--one verse (Acts 2:46). Gather all the facts first. Also, if you want to be believed, answer more questions than you ask. Based on your post, you are simply unteachable. The structure of Acts 20:7 is such that demonstrates it had been a practice by the time of this meeting. Luke mentions it as a natural occurance rather than a special meeting. Also, though Paul was in town for 7 days, this is the only day mentioned where they broke bread. 2 Timothy was written well after this--a minimum of a year and more likely several years. You said "I find that 'They did this, so we must do this,' is an inferior teaching to, 'They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives.'" Do you have the same disregard for other Scriptures like: Acts 2:37-38 (ESV) Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 16:30-31 (ESV) Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." They did this. Don't we have to do the same? Steve |
||||||
2 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127206 | ||
Dear Steve, Let me open by saying that you are being insulting, condescending, accusatory, opinionated, and otherwise rude. Based on your response and the lack of reasonable answers, it is apparent to me that you did not take any time to consider what I said or why. I disagreed with your comment about Acts 20:7, demonstrated why I disagreed with it, and otherwise agreed with you that Sunday was the day of worship according to historical evidence. Taking my statements, putting words in my mouth through your lack of consideration, and demeaning me, is not the way you are going to pursuade me. You stated: "Based on your post, you are simply unteachable." I am unteachable because I refuted what you said, used scripture to substantiate it, and offered an alternative while agreeing with you? It seems to me that I am not the one unteachable here. Your one-liner statement, followed by a rash rebuke to credible statements, has all the stink of pride. You criticized me for saying: "I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine," and turned right around and said, "So can I." What, exactly, is your point? If holes can be punched in it, then it is not a valid passage upon which to base a doctrine. Build upon a rock, not upon the sand. What you are holding to is flawed, and not because of the point, but because of your choice of scripture reference. There are better ones available. You said: "you were on a tangent based on slim evidence--one verse (Acts 2:46)." Need I point out to you that you were basing your point on the same slim evidence--one verse (Acts 20:7)? Do you not know that this makes you a hypocrite? The wisdom that is from God is without hypocrisy [James 3:17]. Your criticism was unbecoming. You said: "2 Timothy was written well after this--a minimum of a year and more likely several years." What credible evidence do you base this on? There are 28 chapters to the book of Acts. The events in Troas were in chapter 20. That's awfully close to the end. Paul is taken into custody in Acts 21:27, and from there ends up in Rome. You said: "Also, if you want to be believed, answer more questions than you ask." What questions, exactly, did you ask that I needed to answer? The whole of your post was: "You mentioned Acts 2:46, but might I point you to Acts 20:7 where the practice became meeting on the first day of the week." So you pointed me there, and I demonstrated that "this passage you are citing, while you are likely correct in your estimation, is not conclusive." I agreed with you that you were right, but found the reference lacking, and proceeded to demonstrate. What, exactly, is the problem here? Now, you said: "Do you have the same disregard for other Scriptures like:" I never disregarded any scripture. I feel that Acts 2:42-47 is a better example for the subject. I did not disregard Acts 20:7, but acknowledged the more definitive passage. Your statement is downright rude. I resent it. In no way was I trying to say that "believing" or "repenting" or "being baptized" was to be ignored. These things are plain statements, and I personally believe, have repented, and have been baptized. As for 'They did this, so we must do this,' is an inferior teaching to, 'They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives.' We are not meant to be robots. They did the things they did for a reason. If we don't understand what that reason is, we can't apply the principle to other parts of our lives. To simply emulate what they did is ignorant when the opportunity is there for us to learn an even greater principle than simple mimicry. I hope I have properly addressed your statements to your satisfaction. If you feel the need to rebuke me again, I recommend you pray first, think second, and respond last. I have no desire to be in strife with you or anyone else. Ancient |
||||||
3 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | srbaegon | 127277 | ||
Hello Ancient, You are correct--I am very opinionated. I find unswerving devotion to the Word of God does that. My only comment about Acts 20:7 was that you should consider it as what the church practiced some years later. It was you who said I was building an eternal doctrine on one verse. I agreed that this statement was correct. I would not try to build a doctrine off this one verse. I said you seemed unteachable because those I engage with that ask a multitude of questions without offering answers to those questions are only building a smokescreen. They don't want to learn the truth. What credible evidence do I base the timing of 2 Timothy to Acts 20? Pick up any commentary written by a Bible-believing person, and you'll find all the evidence you need. Check out www.bible.org or www.ccel.org for examples. Even doing the math straight from reading Acts and 2 Tim. you'll find this. What questions did I want answered? These: "Does Acts 20:7 say that they did not meet on the second day of the week? Or the third? Or the fourth? Does Acts 20:7 say that they only met on that day of the week? Is it possible they met on the other days as well, but we are not informed here because it is not immediately relevent to the story being told? Is it also possible they met the other days, since we are lacking an address of the issue in this passage, and especially in comparison with Acts 2:46? Is it possible that they were at the tail end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, seeing that Paul and some of the others had gone ahead of the rest of the group, and the group that stayed behind didn't leave Phillipi until after said holiday? Could it be that the first day of the week was the last convocation of the holiday? The holiday lasts from the 14th through the 21st [Exodus 12:18]. It starts at evening on the 14th, and it ends at evening on the 21st. If the holiday started on a Sunday at evening, that would have it ending on a Sunday at evening. Could this be why they were gathered? We know from 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 that a door was opened up for Paul to preach the Gospel in Troas. But we know also from 2 Timothy 4:13-17 that in Troas, Alexander the coppersmith vigorously opposed his teaching, and everyone deserted Paul. So what kind of disciples were these men in Acts 20:7? We're talking about the same place. Are we talking about the same time? Is this the same occurrence? Did these "disiciples" we're wont to take example from the same "disciples" that abandoned Paul?" I consider "They did this, so we must do this" being inferior teaching as a disregard for Scripture. That's what I was discussing. I agree that knowing why a thing is to be done is important, but when God says to do something, we must do it even is there's no reason stated. (And please don't apply this to Acts 20:7. I'm not thinking of that passage.) Steve |
||||||
4 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127326 | ||
Steve, I've been spending time debating with EdB. I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I have to hit the sack. It's 3:10 am, and I would hate to miss church, being commanded and all ... (just a bit of sour humor after a 14 hour debate) I will try to repond to this post properly when I am more rested. Ancient |
||||||