e together to break bread, Paul preached (dielegeto) unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight."
As you can see, by translating dielegeto (a derivative of dialegomai) "preach" rather than "held a discussion" it would certainly be easy to get the idea that this was a "speech" or “sermon” rather than a discussion.
Though the modern practice in all institutional churches of any stripe is that of “giving sermons” and “preaching from the pulpit,” the word group for "giving a speech" or "give sermons" is never found within the New Testament ecclesia. Instead we have "discuss" or "start a discussion," or "dialogue", the true meaning of the Greek word.
But again, the translators gave an incorrect rendering. They inserted the word “preach” instead of dialegomai, “dialogue”, confirming yet again their love affair with the medieval practices and traditions of power hungry and lust-filled men.
So now we have in the church institution the notion called “the centrality of preaching,” taken from Acts 20, a situation where the Apostle Paul spoke for a long time. But many fail to notice, and others even refuse to acknowledge, that verse 7 specifically states that the purpose of their coming together was “to break bread” (fellowship) not to hear a sermon!
Remember, there were special circumstances surrounding this particular meeting, for it was the last time Paul would ever see them. If the apostle came to your assembly, wouldn’t you want to prolong your time together in order to hear what he had to say? Even though the specific word used here is dialegomai, from which we derive our English word “dialogue,” implying a give-and-take with the listeners, men still insist in twisting the Scriptures to gain their own ends. What Paul said certainly provided the substance of the gathering, but he did not talk non-stop for hours. There certainly would have been discussion and audience participation. Paul was concerned about what was on the hearts of others too.
This is just yet another despicable and disgusting trick of the translators, a trick which has been kept up and running through the centuries, right up to our modern day clergy, who are ever so eager and willing to stoke the fires and fan the flames to gain their own ends.
Do you still think that any of them are possessed with good intentions? Think long and hard about it while you search the musty halls of tradition to support a church institution concept.
Have we not blown up the ego of the "clergy" until they feel that they need not answer to anyone for what they teach, or fail to teach? What rules do we see (spoken or unspoken) inside an institutional church that the so-called “authorities” have established?
No one questions the public speaker from the same audience, but waits until after "church" when no one is around to hear the question, except the speaker. Many times the group leaves the “church” with a one-sided view of the lesson, again "proving" that what the speaker said is from God.
To question a pastor/elder today, or "call one on the carpet" for something he taught publicly is almost considered a mortal sin. The church institution has been taught by man that group obedience to the “church authorities” in all things is from God. What power engulfs mere men when the group believes this! They are taught that to question them is to question Almighty God. Does this sound unlikely? Then try questioning them on a tradition held and taught by them. Perhaps you can try questioning them in regards to the subject matter of this article?
My guess is that you will be pounced upon to a pulp! How sad, and yet how revealing.
Men who hesitate to submit their thought process and conclusions to fair public examination must have some good reason not to. Preachers who preach only to the choir will never know whether what they preach has enough substance to it to stand the heat of public examination. Men who would deny freedom of speech to any others must have deep roots of doubt about the truth of their own convictions or their own ability to present it an