posted
(Addit: Lissa, feel free to correct me if you think I have misrepresented your position or that of Churches of Christ, generally speaking. I am trying not to portray myself as an expert or authority--just someone who thinks he sees a misunderstanding going on.)
quote:Yes, except I'm not laughing at or using a rolling-around graemlin in a mocking manner towards different perspectives like you are.
I can't say for sure whether Lissa meant to mock people, but I doubt it. And I certainly didn't mean it that way. These are issues that were hashed out by the Churches of Christ quite some time ago, and it's amusing to see the argument being repeated. That's all I find funny.
quote:"we may look at the Sabbath in a different way" when referring to being Saturday or Sunday, is not a reasonable explanation. The Sabbath is the Jewish Shabbat, there is really no other reasonable definition—until a Christian law is made to change that.
Unless I have seriously misunderstood, I think Lissande said basically what you did. "we may look at the Sabbath in a different way" is a polite way of saying "I disagree with you", not "It doesn't matter about the Sabbath". To the best of my knowledge, this is a subject all of the Churches of Christ agree on: the Sabbath is the Sabbath; It is not Sunday; No human law can change that, "Christian" or not; However, the Sabbath has been abrogated by divine law in the New Testament. Since you seem to have issues with Paul, I can guess that you would disagree with the last part, but the rest is not fundamentally different from what you said, so far as I can tell. We have no disagreement on the existence of Constantine's Blue Law--only on whether it had any spiritual validity.
Next you mention some discussion about I Corinthians and how it relates to passages about "breaking bread".
I'm having trouble following the argument about the Eucharist/Lord's Supper, since it seems to me as if some of you are changing sides. It certainly looks to me as if "breaking bread" is often used in the Bible to describe the Lord's Supper following its use in the context of the Last Supper. If you are saying that these uses are post-dated by later, suspect authors, then I doubt I can convince you otherwise. If you are saying that this is simply a misinterpretation of the term "breaking bread", it will take me some time to review the passages in question; work is interfering.
Lastly, you have some material on history that supposedly contradicts the New Testament. I can see certain things that are discussed in each but not in the other, but I don't see how that is a contradiction, unless one makes the other impossible.
It looks to me as though you're trying to portray the New Testament as a collection of anti-Semitic writings. Considering that nearly all the writers are ethnically Jewish, that's hard for me to believe. The Gospel accounts of Jesus' trial vary, but they all agree that Pilate was (in part) responsible for the execution of Jesus; they simply add that a contingent of Jews led by the priesthood put pressure on him. You say yourself that Pilate's treatment of the region was in question, and that it is for that reason that he was removed; is it so hard to imagine that he saw it coming, and tried (too late, and under the wrong circumstances) to moderate his actions? (IE, Pilate tries to go easy on Jesus, thinking it will keep the people from revolting; Jesus' enemies threaten a revolt if Jesus is not executed; Pilate chooses the course he thinks is least likely to get him removed.)
I will freely admit that this is, in part, a matter of faith. I ask only that you remember that your historical texts from two millennia ago are unlikely to be much more complete than our religious texts. Attrition alone ensures that, and doubtless competing political and religious factions all tried to have their personal agendas promoted and their opponents' suppressed.
As for the schism between Jewish and Gentile Christians--I do not know of any church that denies it existed. We simply take the side of Paul. Why not?
posted
Nothing I have to disagree with in there, Mabus. (see how suspicious I am when I smile?) (not to mention lacking in eyebrows and nose and with a very round head)
I used to work calling alumni of my (private Christian) university asking for donations to scholarship funds. We called five afternoons and evenings a week, including Sunday. I remember several people who were very offended at being called on Sunday (why, I don't know, since nothing in the New Testament commands rest on the first day of the week - in fact, since it was a work day at the time, I hardly see how it could be interpolated). "Are you calling me on the Sabbath??" I always barely held back from answering, "No, I don't work on Saturdays."
posted
Not sure if anyone's interested, but the Catholic Church doesn't claim that Sunday is the Sabbath - Sunday is the Lord's Day, and weekly worship is held on that day because of the Resurrection.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(see how suspicious I am when I smile?) 
