Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnOwen007  Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyhyde What do you make of Acts 2:42 saying . . . "breaking of the bread," as the article is used, while in 2:46 the noun is anarthrous? | At best it may indicate that the Lord's Supper was included with a meal. However, the article may well indicate it was simply a set meal for believers rather than a more general meal (so Acts 27). In other words, the evidence is too slim to make a case for the Eucharist. We need something more concrete. |
Yes. It also proves too much. Acts 2:42 would actually argue for
daily communion, rather than weekly communion.
I wonder if a simple series of questions would help:
Would you consider a church a real church if they did not have weekly communion? Would you consider a church a true church if they did not have weekly preaching (say once a month, or once a quarter)? What is the difference? Does that tell us something about the nature of the Lord's Supper?