Distorting what I say won't create a way of escape for you.
I don't even know what Armstrong has to say on this point, neither do I care. I'll rather remind you of one Pliny who wrote on the Christians' behalf to the ruler of the world of his day, and he told him who the Christians were - by telling him what they used to DO. "They on a certain day MEET TOGETHER". Most conspicious!
That's it friend in Jesus - YOU are one of them because YOU, "meet together" and "meeting together", IS the Church of Jesus Christ.
What do I teach that is so radically different from THIS, sound, doctrine, that you go nuts? Nothing but the irritating reality of the constitution of God's People being that Body of Believers who - essentially - are those who meet together "on a certain day". The only question remaining, is THIS: Is it the Day "thereto appointed" by God, or is it any day of anyone's liking or disliking of the day appointed thereto by God?
You are offended by this Day, when you say, "This is what happens from focusing on a day like that. We lose focus on what the Church is!"
The Church in Acts met every day of the week. People can get together anytime for prayer and fellowship, and they are still "the Church". Meeting one day out of the week is ONE thing the Church does; not ALL the Church does; and outside of that, it doesn't exist! It is not all about a building and a certain time of the week. It is the traditions of men that have defined the Church like that.
"Going nuts"? All I have done is clamly tell you the truth. You are the one reacting. "offended"? Why would I be; when your position clearly is notboiblical. "escape"? what is this, you think you have me on trial or something? (You're obviously the one "offended", then; it's like I "offended" you, and now you're "chasing" me or something!) "distorting what you say"? You are reaffirming it. No, the Church is not only the Church at a set meeting time. If so, that would mean we were outside of Christ and not saved the minute we set foot outside the building, until the next week. "By ONE SPIRIT are we baptized into one BODY. "Body of Christ" is synonymous with "the Church". We are not in and out of the Body every week.
As we see, you do lose focus of the truth; by turning the very concept of Christ's Church (a SPIRITUAL fellowship and Kingdom) into a mechanical routine of people meeting at a certain time in a certain place.
There is this day in the New Testament called, "The Lord's Day".
If the Day belongs to the Lord - if He is Lord of and over this day - then to His People does it belong, and they upon it! And you are offended by it.
You make the same exact mistake as the Sunday keepers! That passage says not ONE THING about a day of the week. John was, however taken "in spirit" (vision) to the "Day of the Lord", which was the time of His judgment! It was in the 2nd century when that term was first assumed to be a day of the week, and that day was Sunday. So all you are doing is trying to beat the Sundaykeepers at their own game.
Then again, the Scriptures nowhere states or implies Jesus would rise on that one moment that is neither the past nor the next day. Armstrong exposes his foolish thinking best exactly on this point of the ending of the three days and three nights, where he initially overstates the time period to the second, then a bit further on in his pamphlet brings the resurrection a bit before sunset, and still further on to Sabbath's afternoon - in the end hitting the right spot.
Armstrong offshoot Christian Biblical Church of God writer Ron Coulter points out that both interpretations of the term "3 days and 3 nights" are harmonized at one particular pair of times. If "day and nights" means only "parts of 3 days"; that can be from the end of the first day to the beginning of the 3rd day; which would be the traditional Friday noght to Sunday. But it could also be the beginning of the first day to the end of the 3rd Day. Which would be practically 72 hours, agreeing with the literal interpretation. If we postulate they didn't actually make it to the tomb before the annual Sabbath began; the annual Sabbath would be the first day. And of course, if He actually arose at the end of the weekly Sabbath (and was discovered after it ended), then the weekly sabbath would actually be the "3rd day". I had found that "today is the 3rd day since these things occurred" (Luke 24:21) could possibly be translated something to the effect that "the third day has passed". (I'd have to look it up again). That would make sense, because why would they necessarily expect Him to have been risen already at the
beginning of the day? There would be the rest of the day for Him to rise to fulfill the prophecy.
I had accepted this, until I noticed that all of the resurrection accounts; we see a progression of "Crucifixion Day--Sabbath Day--Resurrection Day". It really doesn't seem there were two sabbaths in there with another day inbetween.
As for the argument about women and the spices before and after the sabbath; I harmonize all of the accounts
here
I hate to say it; but boy, do you have things mixed up! This is what happens from focusing on a day like that. We lose focus on what the Church is! Just like the argument of Armstrong that "Christ's presence" is not in other days! (How limited of Christ! I guess Satan must be lord of 6/7ths (85%) of the week! 