Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Rudy Schellekens's avatar

As enjoyable as the reading is, there some problematic statements. For one, the idea that Acts 20 was a) a decided upon waiting (So they could celebrate the Lord's Supper) and b) that the breaking of the bread HAS to mean the Lord's Supper. There are other reasons why the wait... For one, availability of travel mode. Also, the expression "Breaking bread" is also used in other places, where it is a "normal" meal. And then there is c) the we conclude form this passage that the "first day of the week was an established pattern by the time we come to Acts 20.

The next issue is establishing a "planned, weekly contribution for all sorts of use of the money (rent, salaries, mortgage etc.) The specified reason why Paul is collecting money was to help needy saints in Jerusalem. Not for any other "expenditures." The specified argument: Plan for this, so it will not be a surprise for you when I get there. And in a later letter Paul praises those who gave out of their extreme poverty, for the same cause: Needy saints in Jerusalem.

For a group who claims to "speak where the Bible speaks..." we sure say a lot NOT found in the Bible... ;-)

No posts

Ready for more?