From: WmHBoyd (WmHBoyd@aol.com)
Date: Sat Jan 10 1998 - 11:13:39 EST
I'spect ya'll'ul enjoy this. (Let me know if you need a translation. It helps
to say it slow.)
Growing up proper in the rural south we understood the difference in DINNER,
LUNCH and SUPPER. In the country we all ate dinner at noon. In town they'd
all eat dinner for supper. This made perfect sence, because "dinner" was the
"kind" of meal and "supper" was the "time" of meal. About the only time town
folks ate dinner at noon was on Sunday (ie: Sunday Dinner) the rest of the
time thay just had "lunch." (Both "kind" and "time." A sort of a mid-day
snack. A real high-falutin' lunch was a lunchen, but it still didn't amount to
much.)
Here's the problem. Where I worship we always make it a point to take the
Lord's supper on the first day of week after the New Testament pattern. Now a
good brother, dear friend, and hard working dependable deacon has raised an
objection. "If this is the "Lord's Supper", then why do we take it in the
morning. Nobody in their right mind ever had 'supper' in mid-morning! At the
risk of being irreverent, (which we are not) there's not a thing in the Bible
about a Lord's brunch!" Here is the question I have for the Greeks. Does
"DEIPNON" imply time?
The Barbarian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:51 EDT