You're right. I mentioned that I was working from memory...I knew that Unleavened Bread followed immediately after Passover; that's why I said it was part of it. Bad choice of wording on my part. Sorry for any confusion.
The days of unleavened bread was a 7 day celebration which included passover. Is it so hard to think that Easter couldn't have fallen during the 7 days of unleavened bread? Of course it could; Easter still continues to occur during passover on occasion. It makes more sense to me to see two celebrations...especially considering that the Bible explicitly refers to the days of unleavened bread and Easter in the same portion of scripture.
I shouldn't even respond, because I can't remember the details. The use of the word "Easter" had to do with who the verses are referring to... Acts 12:1-4 1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. These verses are centering around Herod and what he, as an arm of the Gentile Roman government, was doing to the church. Verse 3 clearly points out that this happened during the days of unleavened bread (passover), yet since Herod served a Gentile government which celebrated Gentile holidays, Herod wanted to wait until after the Gentile holiday of Easter to bring Peter out. So, from my memory, the verses include the fact that it happened during passover (verse 3), but also gives the detail that this was talking about the Gentile holiday of Easter which occurred during the same time as passover. It's explaining the time-frame from a Gentile perspective by using Easter...I guess you could say. Sorry for the bad explanation; perhaps someone else could clarify or add to it.
Well, you could look at it this way... From what I understand, and I don't know if this is true or not...but the Greek text was written basically as one long word; such as, no punctuation marks or spacing between words. If that's so, this might be pretty close to "the originals".
I agree. There actually are some "paragraph" divisions, but they're not obvious because they don't include a space between paragraphs...and their paragraphs are extremely long. That plus a different font would make it easier to read (in my opinion).
As we all know, it's easy to take a verse out of context in order to "prove" something. All too often, one doesn't take into account the preceding or succeeding verses that lend to understanding what a particular portion of scripture (a.k.a. - verse) is saying. While chapter and verse divisions are definitely helpful in many aspects, they can also be a hindrance. Chapters and verses weren't part of the Bible to begin with, and I believe that being able to read the Bible without them can be of benefit to someone who is a serious student of God's word. I'm not advocating doing away with chapter and verses, but I do think that being able to read God's word without them could help in giving context where context is ignored. With that said, here's a link to an online Bible without chapter and verse divisions. So far, this is the best one I've found. I do wish they had chosen a different font though. Be prepared...this is much different than what you're used to. It would be much harder to "read a chapter a day" for your daily Bible reading. One thing that I've noticed...and maybe it's just me...but I find that I have to slow down (while reading it this way) in order to "take it in"...and that's a good thing. http://online.biblewithoutverses.com/en/Acts 28%3A30/
In humble honesty...no sir, I don't see that. When I read what you said...in the words that you said, what was obvious to me was obviously something different than what was obvious to you. We are going around and around here, so this will be my final reply. As you believe that what you said was obvious, I believe the following is obvious. 1. The church was future according to the Lord Jesus Christ's own words... Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 2. The church was built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets... Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets , Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 3. Those prophets were not the Old Testament prophets... Ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 4. The early church was given those prophets by the Holy Spirit; being a prophet was a gift of the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets , thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; See...there are the apostles AND prophets...the first two listed, and they are the foundation upon which the church was built. 5. The fact that the early church had prophets is evidenced by... Acts 11:27-30 Acts 13:1-3 Acts 15:32
Well, I gave in to temptation, and the goatee and mustache are coming along better this time. I thought I'd try a different approach...instead of keeping it trimmed, I'm letting it grow. That's helping it look more full. It's almost to the point where I have to trim it though... Unfortunately...I'm a middle-man. I can't grow hair in the middle of my head, and I can only grow hair in the middle of my face.
Okay...but you're missing out on a lot of things by not seeing how things were done during the time when the Bible was written...aka - Bible times. Some things were done much differently (back in Bible times), and without knowing or understanding that, one will miss a deeper meaning or truth. Same as with some of the wording in the Bible...if you apply modern-day meanings to them, you get the wrong meaning and message. Bible times, Bible times , Bible times ... No...that's not what the Lord Jesus Christ said. You left out parts of those verses. Matthew 7:24 and 26 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
The Lord is comparing those who hear and obey (his sayings) to a wise man who builds his house upon a rock...and a foolish man who builds a house upon the sand. That says nothing of what you stated that it says. Both the wise and the foolish men heard his sayings... ...the difference is that the wise heard AND obeyed; the foolish heard but DIDN'T obey. He's not saying that his words are the foundation or the rock...he's saying that a man who hears and obeys his sayings is wise and, that man (not Christ's sayings) is LIKE a man who builds upon a rock. Bible times, Bible times , Bible times ...