resurrection

[jenna]

Ok, found one part. 1Cor. 16:2. "Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, so that there be no gatherings when I come. Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do you." This passage supposedly gives authority for passing the "collection plate" every Sunday. Does it represent a general command to ALL Christians, for ALL time, to give freewill offerings at "Sunday services"? No. However, this passage DOES speak of an offering, a collection to be taken up for a specific purpose. The offering here is unique in 5 ways. First, it is a specific OFFERING described in Romans 15:25-28. This passage shows the collection was for the "poor saints...at Jerusalem." Second, it was done at a specific time, when Paul passed through. Third, it was given at one specific place. ("let everyone of you lay BY HIM in store"). This was not an offering kept at the church, or given every, or any, Sunday. Fourth, this command is specific to the Corinthians. (v.1) Fifth, this letter was received in Corinth during the Days of Unleavened Bread. "First day of the week" should properly be translated "first of the WEEKS" (plural). The collection was almost certain to happen immediately after the Days of Unleavened Bread, in the first WEEK counting toward Pentacost. Also note V.4. "And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me", coupled with verse 3 referencing "them", shows that it took several people to transport this large offering to Jerusalem. This would not be necessary if it was simply cash and coins taken up in an offering plate. It would be necessary if much FOOD and DRINK were involved.

[Byblos]

Ok, found one part. 1Cor. 16:2. "Upon the first day of the week, let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, so that there be no gatherings when I come. Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do you." This passage supposedly gives authority for passing the "collection plate" every Sunday. Does it represent a general command to ALL Christians, for ALL time, to give freewill offerings at "Sunday services"? No. However, this passage DOES speak of an offering, a collection to be taken up for a specific purpose. The offering here is unique in 5 ways. First, it is a specific OFFERING described in Romans 15:25-28. This passage shows the collection was for the "poor saints...at Jerusalem." Second, it was done at a specific time, when Paul passed through. Third, it was given at one specific place. ("let everyone of you lay BY HIM in store"). This was not an offering kept at the church, or given every, or any, Sunday. Fourth, this command is specific to the Corinthians. (v.1) Fifth, this letter was received in Corinth during the Days of Unleavened Bread. "First day of the week" should properly be translated "first of the WEEKS" (plural). The collection was almost certain to happen immediately after the Days of Unleavened Bread, in the first WEEK counting toward Pentacost. Also note V.4. "And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me", coupled with verse 3 referencing "them", shows that it took several people to transport this large offering to Jerusalem. This would not be necessary if it was simply cash and coins taken up in an offering plate. It would be necessary if much FOOD and DRINK were involved.

No, it is not just for a specific purpose since Paul makes it very clear he had given the same instructions to other churches (interestingly enough from the first verse you omitted). 1Cor 16:1 reads "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also:". First he plainly states it's a collection for the saints and collections were typically done on days of worship, and second he had given the same instructions to the Galatian churches (plural), and third, he is commanding them to do it, no mention of a one time offering.

As for the change from "first day of the week" to "first of the weeks", that's a very weak, unsupported reading which is not found anywhere in any standard Bible translation (I checked NIV, NASB which actually states "on the first day of every week", Amplified: "On the first of each week ", KJV, ASV, ESV).

Your interpretation does not hold water, sorry. Try again.

[frankbaginski]

Hi all,

I just love Bible study. I find myself getting a paper out and taking notes all of the time. You have to be real careful with words like "and", "Before this", "after this", the word "and" groups things and does not mean they are in time sequence.

The best resource for this issue is the book "The Coming Prince" which details the prophesy of Daniel about the 69 weeks of years. It details the exact day that the decree was given to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. It also details the exact day that Jesus came into Jerusalem on a donkey. Of course to set these dates required a huge investigation.

I am with friends for the holidays so I don't have access to my books.

Jesus rides into Jerusalem April 6, 32 AD. This is the conclusion in the book.

I hope this helps. Also some meals for the feast were on the eve. You have to look at tradition to set a timeline. I have never studied the timeline for the 3 days, maybe I should.

[Byblos]

And here's a link that proves Friday/Sunday crucifixion/resurrection, in 33 a.d., and in the end ties it all very nicely with Daniel's prophecy. This should put to rest any doubt on the subject.

[jenna]

Please also note what the writer says at the end of the link. "This is my OPINION of this". Since this is just his opinion, can it really be fact? I know that I also post my OPINIONS on this board, but I try to have them backed up with factual scripture and history as much as possible.

[FFC]

Please also note what the writer says at the end of the link. "This is my OPINION of this". Since this is just his opinion, can it really be fact? I know that I also post my OPINIONS on this board, but I try to have them backed up with factual scripture and history as much as possible.

Jenna, from looking at that article can't you at least see how we can believe what we do...even though you dont?

[Byblos]

Please also note what the writer says at the end of the link. "This is my OPINION of this". Since this is just his opinion, can it really be fact? I know that I also post my OPINIONS on this board, but I try to have them backed up with factual scripture and history as much as possible.

And so did he (back up his opinion with scripture). Although the opinion you mention is part of a standard disclaimer to prevent unauthorized copying, dissemination, publication, etc. Is there such a thing as a non-opinion when it comes to interpretation? (unless of course we have some kind of a central authority we can consult, hmm where can we find such a thing?).

[jenna]

To some extent, yes. I just don't believe the words of man until it can be tested and proven by the bible and from facts in history.

[zoegirl]

Which Byblos has done (shown from history and from scripture) admirably.

Look, as FFC said, there are reasons we believe what we do.

[Byblos]

To some extent, yes. I just don't believe the words of man until it can be tested and proven by the bible and from facts in history.

You believe Armstrong and his beliefs have been shown to be rather skewed.

[jenna]

And look, Zoe, like I said, I can understand to a point why you believe what you do. And Byblos, of Mr. Armstrong, his beliefs may have been skewed in YOUR way of thinking, but that doesn't mean he was wrong for what he believed.

[Byblos]

And look, Zoe, like I said, I can understand to a point why you believe what you do. And Byblos, of Mr. Armstrong, his beliefs may have been skewed in YOUR way of thinking, but that doesn't mean he was wrong for what he believed.

He may not have been wrong in YOUR way of thinking, but that doesn't make him right. There is such a thing as objective truth you know, but that (and Armstrong's beliefs for that matter) are subjects for a different thread.

[jenna]

Subjects for a different thread I agree with. But how would you feel if I told you the Pope was skewed in his way of thinking? Since there are no major differences in Roman Catholic and Catholic beliefs, basically you believe everything that he teaches, correct? Same with Mr. Armstrong's teachings and my beliefs. I have never tried to put anyone's beliefs down or say in any way that what they believe is "skewed". I may have been a little opinionated in some of my views, but I would never put down someone's belief or tell them it was wrong, And I truly do not like it when someone does this to me.

[Byblos]

Subjects for a different thread I agree with. But how would you feel if I told you the Pope was skewed in his way of thinking? Since there are no major differences in Roman Catholic and Catholic beliefs, basically you believe everything that he teaches, correct? Same with Mr. Armstrong's teachings and my beliefs. I have never tried to put anyone's beliefs down or say in any way that what they believe is "skewed". I may have been a little opinionated in some of my views, but I would never put down someone's belief or tell them it was wrong, And I truly do not like it when someone does this to me.

Jen, I would probably agree with you wrt the Pope. Popes are men and just as fallible as you and I (well, mostly I). We do not follow nor adhere to the teachings of men. We follow and adhere to the teachings of the church, the very church we believe Christ instituted on earth. We follow and adhere to the teachings of what we believe are the vicars of the apostles (the collective of the bishops). There's nothing wrong with saying Armstrong's beliefs are skewed. It's not an insult towards him or you. It is a fact that his beliefs do not align with traditional, Orthodox Christianity (starting with the Trinity). Please do not take it personal, it's not.

[FFC]