RSS .92
Atom .03
The King over the water
November 20, 2009, 10:48 pm
One vernacular Mass on Sunday
September 10, 2009, 4:46 pm
A comment on an article on the reform of the reform states:
I am tired. Hence the long break between posts. I am do tired. And I wish the above comment would come true. Then I might have more energy. I dread the election of the next pope. What if he's not another Benedict?
Hat tip - the Lady Dragon
One vernacular Mass on Sunday for people to learn in their language is
suficient to prepare them for the Extraordinary Form, which should
become the normative in parishes beacuse it best expresses our identity
as Catholics.
I am tired. Hence the long break between posts. I am do tired. And I wish the above comment would come true. Then I might have more energy. I dread the election of the next pope. What if he's not another Benedict?
Hat tip - the Lady Dragon
1 Corinthians 16 verses 1-2
February 22, 2009, 9:08 pm
Over at Answering Catholicism, Erol is making some interesting claims about the Catholic Church. Apart from subscribing to the long discredited Vicarius Filii Dei = papal title myth, he has a number of less unreasonable articles about Catholicism, to which he objects.
Erol’s first contact with me was in 2006, when he called me a “LIARRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!� Back then he wasn’t interested in discussion, just name calling.
I posted 2 blog posts about him in 2006:
Erol appears to be a Sabbath keeper, not of the Adventist sort, but subscribing to some of their ideas about Catholicism, and a few more of his own. He’s also a type of Oneness Pentecostal, although the evidence of that appears to have been removed from his website – the links in my blog post no longer exist.
My latest discussion with Erol is on his website, where he takes issue with what I say on my website about the passages in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2.
Erol has now written a post on his blog detailing why he disagrees with me. His blog post can be found here. For the record, I am placing a PDF here as well, as he won’t allow my most recent comment to appear. Another comment from me was also not allowed through; it doesn’t add much, so I’m not going to worry about posting that PDF.
I’ll go through a few points, the most important being Erol’s claim that Paul instructed the Christians at Corinth to stay at home with their offerings, and that he planned to collect them from the individual homes when he was passing through town.
As a reminder, the two passages in question in the KJV are:
Erol accuses me of leaving out verse 1, but as you can see on the original page (which he erroneously thinks was written in answer to his e-mail), verses 1-6 are quoted there in full.
Regarding Acts 20:7, Erol states that “Paul traveled on the 1st day, he therefore did not keep the 1st day holy.�
Erol makes an assumption here regarding the rules by which Paul would have kept the 1st day of the week holy. He assumes that Paul would not have travelled on this day, and therefore concludes that this day was not kept holy by Paul because Paul travelled on that day. However, there is no rational basis for that assumption, either in the Bible, or in the evidence we have of how first and second century Christians kept Sunday. One could just as easily conclude that many modern Catholic bishops and priests do not observe Sunday because they travel on that day.
Erol also makes the inaccurate claim that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Firstly, the Sabbath was never changed, it remains Saturday. Secondly, the Catholic Church teaches that the Apostles began the practice of Sunday observance.
Erol states: “Rome did change the Sabbath and she claims that act proudly by saying its her MARK, furthermore she claims she needs no authority for she herself assumes authority over the BIble to make up whatever bat crazy idea’s come to her mind.�
He doesn’t back that up with any official Catholic statement on the matter; as I’ve mentioned before on this blog and elsewhere, Sabbath keepers tend to provide inaccurate quotes or quotes from unofficial sources such as newspapers. See my article on Who changed the Sabbath which provides REAL Catholic teaching (not newspaper clippings) on the matter.
Also take a look at Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday which explains the difference between newspaper clippings and official sources of Catholic teaching.
Erol also claims that Paul instructed the Christians to keep their offering at home. This seems plausible at first glance, if one considers the words “lay by him� and “in store�. Erol seems to rely heavily on his understanding of these words. They are the best argument he has for his position. However, based on context, I believe they do not require a home-kept offering. There are also several questions and problems that a home-kept offering would raise, and Erol doesn’t want to address these.
The first is the issue of the day on which the offering is to be set aside – the 1st day of the week. Why the first day? Adventists and other Sabbath keepers have put forward the theory that the first day of the week was the day on which people got paid, and so that would be the logical day for any offering based on their payment. Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny – the world at that time didn’t subscribe to the policy envisaged by the Sabbath keepers proposing it. Romans, for instance, had an 8-day business week. Corinth was in Greece, and they didn’t have a 1st-day-of-7 payment system either.
The only answer that fits the historical evidence for what went on on the 1st day of the week is the one where the Christians gathered together on that day because that was their normal custom. Barnabas highlights this in his epistle in the first century; Ignatius, the disciple of the Apostle John, points this out in the early second century AD.
The second problem is how Paul would go about collecting the offerings. He explicitly states that he does not want collections when he comes. It seems as if he wants the collections completed by the time he gets there. In his words, as translated in the KJV: “that there be no gatherings when I come�. Gatherings = monetary collections.
Erol insists that Paul would collect the offerings as he passed through town, but this seems to contradict what Paul had said about there being no collections when he got there.
There seem to be two important aspects of the instruction in verse 2 that we can use to analyse the various scenarios possible:
1. That the collections be done on the 1st day of the week
2. That no offerings be collected when Paul arrives
Here are a few of the scenarios that are possible:
Scenario 1:
Problems: the offerings can be put aside on any day of the week, making the instruction to do so on the 1st day meaningless. The scenario also results in Paul having to visit each Christian household in Corinth, and then visit the leaders of the community. This would be impractical – Paul wants things done fast when he gets there, and this would just slow things down. It would be more practical to give the offerings to the leadership prior to Paul’s arrival, so that the offerings were already ready and waiting in one place. The scenario also makes meaningless Paul’s request that the offerings not be made when he comes, but rather in advance – this scenario has Paul doing the collecting he doesn’t want to do when he gets there – “that there be no gatherings [collections] when I come.�
Scenario 2:
Problems: this leaves open the question as to why it should be done on the first day of the week. There was no financial reason to do it on that day. Was there a religious one? Sabbath keepers wouldn’t accept that answer. It remains illogical. It also contradicts Erol’s requirement that the offerings be kept at home; I don’t see that as a real problem, but it makes it unacceptable to him.
Scenario 3:
Problems: This meets the criteria a) of the collection being on the first day of the week without the timing being illogical, and b) of collections not being held when Paul comes. It does, however, leave a problem for those who want to have “lay by him in store� mean that the donation would be kept at home.
Is that a problem? Yes, a real one. Many commentators take that view, even great Catholic scholars such as St John Chrysostom.
How to resolve the problem: the three aspects of the instruction must make sense together. Sunday, “lay by him in store�, and no collections when Paul gets there.
That this be done on Sunday is clear, and there must be a reason for this being part of the instruction. I’ve found no alternative explanation apart from the claim that this had to do with when people got paid; that claim doesn’t appear to hold any water, as secular society back then didn’t run its finances by the Christian or Jewish calendar. The only logical reasons for a specific timing by the Christian calendar would be for it to coincide with a Christian meeting, or with financial practicalities. For the latter, I find no evidence.
That there be no collections held when Paul gets there is hard to get around, though several have tried. I’ve found those that suggest Paul would hold his own collection passing each home, but that defeats the purpose of his instruction. There are some that say that putting something aside at home each week would allow for a weekly commitment – i.e. planning – instead of a single collection at the end when Paul comes, followed by gathering it together when he gets there (either by Paul collecting it himself, or by calling the people to bring it to where Paul is.) That would allow for “that there be no gatherings when I come� to apply only to individual contributions, but not to the final collection of what has already been designated as a donation. I don’t think there is enough in the text to consider that to be a safe interpretation – that the instruction was meant to have such an exception. And in no way does it solve the problem of why the individuals should do this on the first day of the week.
So, can “lay by him in store� be reasonably interpreted to allow for a weekly collection of the donations into one place to be kept safe by the Christian leaders? And if such an interpretation is reasonable, it is at least equal to Erol’s interpretation, because he is not the one true interpreter of the Bible, and he doesn’t have the authority to say that his interpretations are not mere interpretations, but what the Bible actually says. He’d either have to prove that, or show why my interpretation is not possible, or not reasonable, if he hopes to win any argument.
I believe there is a reasonable interpretation that allows such a scenario. I believe there is a way to read those words that allows harmony between the two apparently contradicting statements – “lay by him in store� and “no gatherings when I come.�
The People’s New Testament commentary has the following to say:
I find no source for the Macknight reference, but the argument holds.
Point 4 – Acts 21:7 should read Acts 20:7, and I agree with those who say that this is not an absolute proof that meetings on the first day were regular ones. It does, however, add to the body of evidence that it was the norm.
Point 3 – Pliny’s letter, as far as I can find, doesn’t deal with collections of money. An additional reference to Justin Martyr, 150 AD:
The word “in store� can mean a central treasury in the Bible. In the Greek Old Testament (the one quoted from by the Apostles), the same word is used in the following passages, where it indicates a central treasury:
The words “lay by him�, as we have seen above, can be translated “lay by itself�. That is then completely compatible with placing the donation in a central treasury. However, it remains a bit odd that the offering would be placed “by itself� – I’ll leave that one open for thought, as it isn’t really necessary. The “by him� can be interpreted to mean, not merely the location, but the disposition of the person. Thus the “by him� and the “in store� need not be the same place. “By him� may refer to the way it is done (whether at home or anywhere else), while the “in store� may refer to the central location from which Paul would send it to Jerusalem.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible clarifies this:
The first part of his explanation makes the most sense. The last sentence, giving another interpretation, has the same problems as previously discussed in this post – the question as to why it had to be Sunday, and the problem with a collection of all the donations being required when Paul arrived, contrary to his instructions, and impractical if there was a functioning leadership in Corinth.
Here are a few of the more interesting quotes from Erol:
I wrote:
Erol replied:
He makes no distinction between the Bible and his interpretation of it.
Erol wrote:
I’ve shown that Rome claims no such thing. The comment I made to that effect never appeared on his blog. And I’m really interested to know how he concludes that I show no scriptural evidence for my claims, when he has been shown where I discuss Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2.
Erol wrote:
I wasn’t replying to 1 chorintians, or even 1 Corinthians. I was explaining my understanding of it.
I say on my site:
Erol responded:
The passage itself does not state that Sunday observance was a regular practice, I agree. However, it does indicate that the instructions given cover a number of Sundays. It’s highly unlikely that Paul wrote the letter the week before he arrived. If there were a number of weeks between the letter and its arrival, the instructions would mean that each Sunday this should happen. Just as when I pay my rent on the last day of the month, or submit my lab’s monthly report by the 7th of the month, I do these things every month, so when they take up a collection on the 1st day of the week, they probably did this every week until Paul came. This is supported by the word “kata�, which can render “upon the first day� as “every first day�.
In my article I wrote:
Erol replied:
It’s a deduction, not an assumption. I think Erol has a problem with degrees of interpretation: his interpretations are declared to be “what the Bible says�, while any deductions are labelled “assumptions�. His assumption that Paul’s words “no gatherings� shows that people would be at home, “not gathering together in a place� is very faulty, since the word for “gatherings� is the same as the word for “collections� and refers to monetary collections, not human meetings.
Erol wrote:
I called him out on that one, and it was at this point that he started saying the following:
and
And that’s where it ends. Erol deleted my last comment so it couldn’t be seen. He has the final word on his blog, and clearly isn’t going to deal with the evidence against his claim that
For the record, therefore, I am placing a PDF virtual print-out of the blog post with all the comments up to the last one I posted, which was subsequently deleted. It can be read here.
Erol tries to blame my disagreement with him on “tradition� that I am obliged to defend or that has blinded me. Yet the Catholic Church does not have a defined interpretation of this text, and Erol’s interpretation (that the donation was kept at home) would not be considered heresy – after all, St John Chrysostom shared his view. (His other conclusions would be, however.) I, in turn, postulate that Erol’s opinions are similarly guided by his tradition – he needs to have Paul visiting from house to house in order to maintain his argument against Catholicism, and that is, in my view, what drives his interpretation. Erol claims that his view is what the Bible teaches, as clear as mud for all to see – if they’re not Catholics twisting the text to suit their tradition, of course. Erol has fallen into the trap of thinking that how he understands a certain passage IS the correct way, the only way, the inspired way. A common tendency with some Protestants. His interpretation is what the Bible says; everything else is the teachings of men. The key ingredient is that he is not a mere man, but one who has the Holy Spirit guiding him so that he can sit in judgement of all interpretations of the Bible, to declare them to be correct if they agree with him, and to be traditions of men if they don’t. His inability to differentiate between the Bible and his interpretation of it is evident throughout his posts. To him, it’s a choice between traditions of men and the personal interpretation of Erol.
He also likes to dodge issues by referring to the fact that I am Catholic. He forgets that this is a matter of interpretation, that many Protestants hold the same view as I do on this matter, and that it really has nothing to do with being Catholic.
Well, surprise – I am claiming that my interpretations are equally inspired and of equal authority as any of his are. Well, my authority IS equal to his, is it not? And I believe what the Bible says too.
Update: commentary over at the SDA2RC blog here.
Erol’s first contact with me was in 2006, when he called me a “LIARRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!� Back then he wasn’t interested in discussion, just name calling.
I posted 2 blog posts about him in 2006:
Erol appears to be a Sabbath keeper, not of the Adventist sort, but subscribing to some of their ideas about Catholicism, and a few more of his own. He’s also a type of Oneness Pentecostal, although the evidence of that appears to have been removed from his website – the links in my blog post no longer exist.
My latest discussion with Erol is on his website, where he takes issue with what I say on my website about the passages in Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2.
Erol has now written a post on his blog detailing why he disagrees with me. His blog post can be found here. For the record, I am placing a PDF here as well, as he won’t allow my most recent comment to appear. Another comment from me was also not allowed through; it doesn’t add much, so I’m not going to worry about posting that PDF.
I’ll go through a few points, the most important being Erol’s claim that Paul instructed the Christians at Corinth to stay at home with their offerings, and that he planned to collect them from the individual homes when he was passing through town.
As a reminder, the two passages in question in the KJV are:
(Acts 20:6) And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
(Acts 20:7) And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
(Acts 20:8] And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
(Acts 20:9) And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
(Acts 20:10) And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
(Acts 20:11) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
(1 Cor 16:1) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(1 Cor 16:2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
(1 Cor 16:3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
(1 Cor 16:4) And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.
(1 Cor 16:5) Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia.
(1 Cor 16:6) And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.
(Acts 20:7) And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
(Acts 20:8] And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
(Acts 20:9) And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
(Acts 20:10) And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
(Acts 20:11) When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
(1 Cor 16:1) Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
(1 Cor 16:2) Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
(1 Cor 16:3) And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
(1 Cor 16:4) And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with me.
(1 Cor 16:5) Now I will come unto you, when I shall pass through Macedonia: for I do pass through Macedonia.
(1 Cor 16:6) And it may be that I will abide, yea, and winter with you, that ye may bring me on my journey whithersoever I go.
“But lets first quote verse 16:1, he conviniently left that out, it will become clear why in a second.�
Erol accuses me of leaving out verse 1, but as you can see on the original page (which he erroneously thinks was written in answer to his e-mail), verses 1-6 are quoted there in full.
Regarding Acts 20:7, Erol states that “Paul traveled on the 1st day, he therefore did not keep the 1st day holy.�
Erol makes an assumption here regarding the rules by which Paul would have kept the 1st day of the week holy. He assumes that Paul would not have travelled on this day, and therefore concludes that this day was not kept holy by Paul because Paul travelled on that day. However, there is no rational basis for that assumption, either in the Bible, or in the evidence we have of how first and second century Christians kept Sunday. One could just as easily conclude that many modern Catholic bishops and priests do not observe Sunday because they travel on that day.
Erol also makes the inaccurate claim that the Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Firstly, the Sabbath was never changed, it remains Saturday. Secondly, the Catholic Church teaches that the Apostles began the practice of Sunday observance.
Erol states: “Rome did change the Sabbath and she claims that act proudly by saying its her MARK, furthermore she claims she needs no authority for she herself assumes authority over the BIble to make up whatever bat crazy idea’s come to her mind.�
He doesn’t back that up with any official Catholic statement on the matter; as I’ve mentioned before on this blog and elsewhere, Sabbath keepers tend to provide inaccurate quotes or quotes from unofficial sources such as newspapers. See my article on Who changed the Sabbath which provides REAL Catholic teaching (not newspaper clippings) on the matter.
Also take a look at Constantine, the Papacy, and the real origins of Sunday which explains the difference between newspaper clippings and official sources of Catholic teaching.
Erol also claims that Paul instructed the Christians to keep their offering at home. This seems plausible at first glance, if one considers the words “lay by him� and “in store�. Erol seems to rely heavily on his understanding of these words. They are the best argument he has for his position. However, based on context, I believe they do not require a home-kept offering. There are also several questions and problems that a home-kept offering would raise, and Erol doesn’t want to address these.
The first is the issue of the day on which the offering is to be set aside – the 1st day of the week. Why the first day? Adventists and other Sabbath keepers have put forward the theory that the first day of the week was the day on which people got paid, and so that would be the logical day for any offering based on their payment. Unfortunately, that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny – the world at that time didn’t subscribe to the policy envisaged by the Sabbath keepers proposing it. Romans, for instance, had an 8-day business week. Corinth was in Greece, and they didn’t have a 1st-day-of-7 payment system either.
The only answer that fits the historical evidence for what went on on the 1st day of the week is the one where the Christians gathered together on that day because that was their normal custom. Barnabas highlights this in his epistle in the first century; Ignatius, the disciple of the Apostle John, points this out in the early second century AD.
The second problem is how Paul would go about collecting the offerings. He explicitly states that he does not want collections when he comes. It seems as if he wants the collections completed by the time he gets there. In his words, as translated in the KJV: “that there be no gatherings when I come�. Gatherings = monetary collections.
Erol insists that Paul would collect the offerings as he passed through town, but this seems to contradict what Paul had said about there being no collections when he got there.
There seem to be two important aspects of the instruction in verse 2 that we can use to analyse the various scenarios possible:
1. That the collections be done on the 1st day of the week
2. That no offerings be collected when Paul arrives
Here are a few of the scenarios that are possible:
Scenario 1:
People put aside offerings in their home … Paul collects when he passes through Corinth, visiting each household … Paul then meets with the leaders of the Christian community, and hands the offerings to someone to take to Jerusalem
Problems: the offerings can be put aside on any day of the week, making the instruction to do so on the 1st day meaningless. The scenario also results in Paul having to visit each Christian household in Corinth, and then visit the leaders of the community. This would be impractical – Paul wants things done fast when he gets there, and this would just slow things down. It would be more practical to give the offerings to the leadership prior to Paul’s arrival, so that the offerings were already ready and waiting in one place. The scenario also makes meaningless Paul’s request that the offerings not be made when he comes, but rather in advance – this scenario has Paul doing the collecting he doesn’t want to do when he gets there – “that there be no gatherings [collections] when I come.�
Scenario 2:
People put aside offerings in their home on the first day of the week … they hand them in later to their leadership … Paul meets with the leaders when he gets there, and gives the offering to someone to take to Jerusalem.
Problems: this leaves open the question as to why it should be done on the first day of the week. There was no financial reason to do it on that day. Was there a religious one? Sabbath keepers wouldn’t accept that answer. It remains illogical. It also contradicts Erol’s requirement that the offerings be kept at home; I don’t see that as a real problem, but it makes it unacceptable to him.
Scenario 3:
People put aside offerings and hand them to the leaders when Paul specified – the 1st day of the week … Paul meets with the leaders when he gets there, and gives the offering to someone to take to Jerusalem.
Problems: This meets the criteria a) of the collection being on the first day of the week without the timing being illogical, and b) of collections not being held when Paul comes. It does, however, leave a problem for those who want to have “lay by him in store� mean that the donation would be kept at home.
Is that a problem? Yes, a real one. Many commentators take that view, even great Catholic scholars such as St John Chrysostom.
How to resolve the problem: the three aspects of the instruction must make sense together. Sunday, “lay by him in store�, and no collections when Paul gets there.
That this be done on Sunday is clear, and there must be a reason for this being part of the instruction. I’ve found no alternative explanation apart from the claim that this had to do with when people got paid; that claim doesn’t appear to hold any water, as secular society back then didn’t run its finances by the Christian or Jewish calendar. The only logical reasons for a specific timing by the Christian calendar would be for it to coincide with a Christian meeting, or with financial practicalities. For the latter, I find no evidence.
That there be no collections held when Paul gets there is hard to get around, though several have tried. I’ve found those that suggest Paul would hold his own collection passing each home, but that defeats the purpose of his instruction. There are some that say that putting something aside at home each week would allow for a weekly commitment – i.e. planning – instead of a single collection at the end when Paul comes, followed by gathering it together when he gets there (either by Paul collecting it himself, or by calling the people to bring it to where Paul is.) That would allow for “that there be no gatherings when I come� to apply only to individual contributions, but not to the final collection of what has already been designated as a donation. I don’t think there is enough in the text to consider that to be a safe interpretation – that the instruction was meant to have such an exception. And in no way does it solve the problem of why the individuals should do this on the first day of the week.
So, can “lay by him in store� be reasonably interpreted to allow for a weekly collection of the donations into one place to be kept safe by the Christian leaders? And if such an interpretation is reasonable, it is at least equal to Erol’s interpretation, because he is not the one true interpreter of the Bible, and he doesn’t have the authority to say that his interpretations are not mere interpretations, but what the Bible actually says. He’d either have to prove that, or show why my interpretation is not possible, or not reasonable, if he hopes to win any argument.
I believe there is a reasonable interpretation that allows such a scenario. I believe there is a way to read those words that allows harmony between the two apparently contradicting statements – “lay by him in store� and “no gatherings when I come.�
The People’s New Testament commentary has the following to say:
The usual view is that every one was directed to set aside something on the Lord's day and keep it until Paul came. This view is sanctioned by the translations and most of the commentators. Macknight renders: "On the first day of the week, let each one of you lay somewhat by itself, putting it into the treasury." I believe Macknight is right; for (1) there were to be no collections when Paul came. That implies that the money was to be placed in the treasury. Otherwise, it would have to be collected. (2) Thesaurizoon, rendered in the Common Version "in store," is a present participle, meaning literally, "putting into the thesaurus," or "treasury." (3) All church history testifies that the early church took up weekly collections on the first day of the week. See Pliny's Letter to the Emperor Trajan. (4) We know, from Acts 21:7, and from all early church history, that the church met on the first day of the week. It only remains to add that par' heauto, rendered by the translators "by him," is rendered with equal correctness, "by itself." Its form is that of the neuter reflexive pronoun.
I find no source for the Macknight reference, but the argument holds.
Point 4 – Acts 21:7 should read Acts 20:7, and I agree with those who say that this is not an absolute proof that meetings on the first day were regular ones. It does, however, add to the body of evidence that it was the norm.
Point 3 – Pliny’s letter, as far as I can find, doesn’t deal with collections of money. An additional reference to Justin Martyr, 150 AD:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president … (First Apology 68, Weekly worship of the Christians)
The word “in store� can mean a central treasury in the Bible. In the Greek Old Testament (the one quoted from by the Apostles), the same word is used in the following passages, where it indicates a central treasury:
Joshua 6:19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.
1 Kings 7:51 So was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the LORD. And Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated; even the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did he put among the treasures of the house of the LORD.
Nehemiah 7:70-1 And some of the chief of the fathers gave unto the work. The Tirshatha gave to the treasure a thousand drams of gold, fifty basons, five hundred and thirty priests' garments. And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work twenty thousand drams of gold, and two thousand and two hundred pound of silver.
Malachi 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
1 Kings 7:51 So was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the LORD. And Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated; even the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did he put among the treasures of the house of the LORD.
Nehemiah 7:70-1 And some of the chief of the fathers gave unto the work. The Tirshatha gave to the treasure a thousand drams of gold, fifty basons, five hundred and thirty priests' garments. And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of the work twenty thousand drams of gold, and two thousand and two hundred pound of silver.
Malachi 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
The words “lay by him�, as we have seen above, can be translated “lay by itself�. That is then completely compatible with placing the donation in a central treasury. However, it remains a bit odd that the offering would be placed “by itself� – I’ll leave that one open for thought, as it isn’t really necessary. The “by him� can be interpreted to mean, not merely the location, but the disposition of the person. Thus the “by him� and the “in store� need not be the same place. “By him� may refer to the way it is done (whether at home or anywhere else), while the “in store� may refer to the central location from which Paul would send it to Jerusalem.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible clarifies this:
Let him lay up at home, treasuring up as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, “by himself,� means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself, when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity. Let him do it not under the influence of pathetic appeals, or for the sake of display when he is with others; but let him do it as a matter of principle, and when he is by himself. The phrase in Greek, “treasuring up,� may mean that each one was to put the part which he had designated into the common treasury. This interpretation seems to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no trouble of collecting when he should come. Or it may, perhaps, mean that they were individually to treasure it up, having designated in their own mind the sum which they could give, and have it in readiness when he should come.
The first part of his explanation makes the most sense. The last sentence, giving another interpretation, has the same problems as previously discussed in this post – the question as to why it had to be Sunday, and the problem with a collection of all the donations being required when Paul arrived, contrary to his instructions, and impractical if there was a functioning leadership in Corinth.
Here are a few of the more interesting quotes from Erol:
I wrote:
Sabbatarians often claim that the money was to be collected at home on a weekly basis.
Erol replied:
We do not claim, scripture does! Like I showed in the post, the Greek shows the true meaning of the place where they gathered, at home!
He makes no distinction between the Bible and his interpretation of it.
Erol wrote:
Since Rome claims Sunday is now the Sabbath they have to do away with such verses because they expose their lies too easily.
That is the real reason Stephen assumes and claims but shows no scriptural evidence for his claims.
That is the real reason Stephen assumes and claims but shows no scriptural evidence for his claims.
I’ve shown that Rome claims no such thing. The comment I made to that effect never appeared on his blog. And I’m really interested to know how he concludes that I show no scriptural evidence for my claims, when he has been shown where I discuss Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:1-2.
Erol wrote:
In reply to 1 chorintians 16:1-2 he said and i quote.
I wasn’t replying to 1 chorintians, or even 1 Corinthians. I was explaining my understanding of it.
I say on my site:
1 Cor 16:2 is quite good evidence for regular Sunday observance. It shows that every week - regularly, weekly - on a certain day, the people collected money for mission work done by Paul.
Erol responded:
If Stephen had read the context he would have noticed that this is not the case at all in this passage. The context shows that this was an emergency event (famine) and that because of that Paul had to give them ORDERS to do this. “… as I have given orders to the churches of galatia…�(16:1). It was not their regular practise.
The passage itself does not state that Sunday observance was a regular practice, I agree. However, it does indicate that the instructions given cover a number of Sundays. It’s highly unlikely that Paul wrote the letter the week before he arrived. If there were a number of weeks between the letter and its arrival, the instructions would mean that each Sunday this should happen. Just as when I pay my rent on the last day of the month, or submit my lab’s monthly report by the 7th of the month, I do these things every month, so when they take up a collection on the 1st day of the week, they probably did this every week until Paul came. This is supported by the word “kata�, which can render “upon the first day� as “every first day�.
“Kata has a distributive force, every first day.� – Vincent’s Word Studies.
In my article I wrote:
The passage does not directly state that there are worship services on the first day of the week, but one can deduce from the context that this had to be so.
Erol replied:
Again, assumption is not evidence. He assumes that there where worship services even though the context reveals there where not. ea, people being at home, not gathering together in a place etc. Paul even said it himself, ““that there be no gatherings when I come.�.
It’s a deduction, not an assumption. I think Erol has a problem with degrees of interpretation: his interpretations are declared to be “what the Bible says�, while any deductions are labelled “assumptions�. His assumption that Paul’s words “no gatherings� shows that people would be at home, “not gathering together in a place� is very faulty, since the word for “gatherings� is the same as the word for “collections� and refers to monetary collections, not human meetings.
Erol wrote:
The context is clear, Paul giving people specific instructions not to gather and to be at home for him to collect the money upon passing trough the city.
I called him out on that one, and it was at this point that he started saying the following:
I can keep explaining the verse allowing scripture to define scripture again however you won’t understand it, so I won’t.
and
And thats the last thing I am gonna say about it to you.
And that’s where it ends. Erol deleted my last comment so it couldn’t be seen. He has the final word on his blog, and clearly isn’t going to deal with the evidence against his claim that
For the record, therefore, I am placing a PDF virtual print-out of the blog post with all the comments up to the last one I posted, which was subsequently deleted. It can be read here.
Erol tries to blame my disagreement with him on “tradition� that I am obliged to defend or that has blinded me. Yet the Catholic Church does not have a defined interpretation of this text, and Erol’s interpretation (that the donation was kept at home) would not be considered heresy – after all, St John Chrysostom shared his view. (His other conclusions would be, however.) I, in turn, postulate that Erol’s opinions are similarly guided by his tradition – he needs to have Paul visiting from house to house in order to maintain his argument against Catholicism, and that is, in my view, what drives his interpretation. Erol claims that his view is what the Bible teaches, as clear as mud for all to see – if they’re not Catholics twisting the text to suit their tradition, of course. Erol has fallen into the trap of thinking that how he understands a certain passage IS the correct way, the only way, the inspired way. A common tendency with some Protestants. His interpretation is what the Bible says; everything else is the teachings of men. The key ingredient is that he is not a mere man, but one who has the Holy Spirit guiding him so that he can sit in judgement of all interpretations of the Bible, to declare them to be correct if they agree with him, and to be traditions of men if they don’t. His inability to differentiate between the Bible and his interpretation of it is evident throughout his posts. To him, it’s a choice between traditions of men and the personal interpretation of Erol.
He also likes to dodge issues by referring to the fact that I am Catholic. He forgets that this is a matter of interpretation, that many Protestants hold the same view as I do on this matter, and that it really has nothing to do with being Catholic.
Well, surprise – I am claiming that my interpretations are equally inspired and of equal authority as any of his are. Well, my authority IS equal to his, is it not? And I believe what the Bible says too.
Update: commentary over at the SDA2RC blog here.
Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions
February 1, 2009, 1:09 am
The full 2006 Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions can be downloaded from WikiLeaks here.
Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions, full, 2006
It's 32.5 MB, and PDF format.
Mormon Church Handbook of Instructions, full, 2006
It's 32.5 MB, and PDF format.
Adventist youth - the challenge of truth
January 1, 2009, 10:32 pm
Hugo has started outlining his journey into the Catholic Church on his blog.
A truly remarkable insight:
As Christ said that the truth will set us free, and it has often been said that when people discover what the Catholic faith is really about, instead of hearing what their tradition wants them to believe about it, they will come to love it for what it is instead of hating and fearing what it isn't.
As ignorance fades, the truth will be rediscovered.
A truly remarkable insight:
Today, the internet has made the Catholic Church's own teachings readily accessible (e.g., the Vatican website). I will not be the last Adventist young person to realize that much of what Adventists teach about Catholicism in their families, churches, or schools is rooted in ignorance (sometimes willful). Where will this realization lead Adventist youth except to a distrust of their church's claims, and an ultimate realization that its prophetic identities are rooted in similar ignorance?
As Christ said that the truth will set us free, and it has often been said that when people discover what the Catholic faith is really about, instead of hearing what their tradition wants them to believe about it, they will come to love it for what it is instead of hating and fearing what it isn't.
As ignorance fades, the truth will be rediscovered.
Scatological attack
December 23, 2008, 1:17 am
My goodness:
Scatological emphasis mine. Any Americans reading this shall hereforthwith spell the word correctly in future.
Source: The Independent, "What did the aide say about the Bishop ...?", 22 Dec 2008
Hat tip: Holy Smoke, Lambeth Palace humiliated as Nazir-Ali speaks the truth
A confidential document sent from Lambeth Palace to No 10 Downing Street and the Church of England's 43 diocesan bishops included the unclerical word "arsehole" appended to the name of Dr Nazir-Ali, Britain's most senior Asian Anglican.
Scatological emphasis mine. Any Americans reading this shall hereforthwith spell the word correctly in future.
Source: The Independent, "What did the aide say about the Bishop ...?", 22 Dec 2008
Hat tip: Holy Smoke, Lambeth Palace humiliated as Nazir-Ali speaks the truth
Samuele Bacchiocchi, requiescas in pace
December 22, 2008, 12:03 am
Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi passed away on Saturday 20 December.
Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace.
Amen.
May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed, rest in peace.
Amen.
Pray for Samuele Bacchiocchi
December 12, 2008, 7:27 pm
Dr Samuele Bacchiocch, one of the more prominent Adventist scholars today, whose work is followed by many Adventists and non-Adventists, is seriously ill. He has liver cancer, and has been admitted to hospital with internal bleeding.
We pray that he be allowed to return to his family for the Christmas season, and that God give him and his family the grace to embrace what His will is for them in the near future.
We pray that he be allowed to return to his family for the Christmas season, and that God give him and his family the grace to embrace what His will is for them in the near future.
Fight FOCA
November 14, 2008, 9:59 pm
Top 10 Predictions after Obama is sworn in
November 6, 2008, 1:02 am
There are some wonderful posts on the blogs today to help us recover from the bad news of the US elections. I have other things I need to blog about, but before I go to bed, I'll post a few links, and this item I just got in my mail ... there is still hope.
American Papist - What we must prepare for in the years ahead
American Papist - Words of hope from today's Mass texts
Creative Minority Report - Reactions, Yours And Mine
Creative Minority Report - Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done
And lastly, the American Papist has a news channel thingy up at YouTube worth watching.
Top 10 Predictions after Obama is sworn in
1. The Bible will still have all the answers.
2. Prayer will still work.
3. The Holy Spirit will still be at work.
4. God will still accept and be pleased with the praises of His people.
5. There will still be God-based teaching
6. There will still be singing of praise to God.
7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.
8. There will still be room at the Cross.
9. Jesus will still love you.
10. Jesus will still save the lost.
1. The Bible will still have all the answers.
2. Prayer will still work.
3. The Holy Spirit will still be at work.
4. God will still accept and be pleased with the praises of His people.
5. There will still be God-based teaching
6. There will still be singing of praise to God.
7. God will still pour out blessings upon His people.
8. There will still be room at the Cross.
9. Jesus will still love you.
10. Jesus will still save the lost.
American Papist - What we must prepare for in the years ahead
American Papist - Words of hope from today's Mass texts
Creative Minority Report - Reactions, Yours And Mine
Creative Minority Report - Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will Be Done
And lastly, the American Papist has a news channel thingy up at YouTube worth watching.
Obama and half an antichrist
October 29, 2008, 11:10 pm
In a century or two, the current irrelevance of human life will be looked at with the same sadness as slavery is today. While most of the Christian world waits and prays that the outcome of the imminent US election will provide a step towards reversing the decline in human rights and dignity that has been promoted till now, Samuele Bacchiocchi is concerned about ... wait for it ... the Pope and Islam. He worries about how Bush helped ruin America with the former, and how Obama will help ruin America with the latter.
I experienced the most recent Endtime Issues as the most extreme narrow-mindedness I have ever seen come out of Bacchiocchi's keyboard. I know he isn't saying that we must forget the life issues - he's not saying anything. But the message I get is the same - "Thou shalt not kill" is ignored, and "The Pope and Islam are your two worst nightmares" seems to be presented as the key issue in the coming election.
I don't know whether Bacchiocchi would be willing to work with Catholics on important social issues both Adventists and Catholics feel the same about. I know some Adventist leaders have recommended avoiding working alongside Catholics even on such matters. Such statements make me think their brain is in such an anti-Catholic cramp that it just cannot move past that, and that even their morning jog is infected with some anti-Catholic OCD-type of disorder. This latest Bacchiocchi production makes me feel the same.
For now, human rights be stuffed - the important things about this election is that it might allow Obama to empower the evils of Islam just as Bush empowered the evils of Catholicism.
Grow up. Get a life. Move past your prophecies and prophetess and Sabbath that we papists and islamists all just want to tramp on and destroy, and see the real picture.
I experienced the most recent Endtime Issues as the most extreme narrow-mindedness I have ever seen come out of Bacchiocchi's keyboard. I know he isn't saying that we must forget the life issues - he's not saying anything. But the message I get is the same - "Thou shalt not kill" is ignored, and "The Pope and Islam are your two worst nightmares" seems to be presented as the key issue in the coming election.
I don't know whether Bacchiocchi would be willing to work with Catholics on important social issues both Adventists and Catholics feel the same about. I know some Adventist leaders have recommended avoiding working alongside Catholics even on such matters. Such statements make me think their brain is in such an anti-Catholic cramp that it just cannot move past that, and that even their morning jog is infected with some anti-Catholic OCD-type of disorder. This latest Bacchiocchi production makes me feel the same.
For now, human rights be stuffed - the important things about this election is that it might allow Obama to empower the evils of Islam just as Bush empowered the evils of Catholicism.
Grow up. Get a life. Move past your prophecies and prophetess and Sabbath that we papists and islamists all just want to tramp on and destroy, and see the real picture.
Why we keep Sunday
September 22, 2008, 4:40 am
This is a question that was e-mailed to me:
My reply:
There is no need to keep the 7th day Sabbath any longer, because there is no biblical command to do so that applies to Christians1,2,3, the Apostles never set an example of doing so4,5,6,7,8,9,10, and we're told that the Sabbath is only a shadow of a greater reality we have experienced11,12,13.
So, if Christians wanted to keep a weekly day special, the natural day would be Sunday, the weekly anniversary of Jesus' resurrection. The Bible indicates that this took place14,15, and other Christian writings from the first and second century are explicit about this16.
Jesus told the Apostles that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. The Christian community has chosen to celebrate Jesus' resurrection as a weekly event, and this has taken place from the beginning of Christianity. To avoid sharing in this weekly celebration is to separate oneself from the united will of Christians from the time of the Apostles.
I've stuck in footnotes to articles on my website, and one from Catholic Answers. At this time of night I don't feel like tracking down the others I could reference.
References:
1. Matt 5 - will the law never pass away?
2. Mark 2/Matt 12/Luke 6 - was the Sabbath made for all mankind to keep?
3. Matt 24 - pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day?
4. Luke 4 - did Jesus set an example of Sabbath keeping for us?
5. Acts 1 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
6. Acts 13 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
7. Acts 15 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
8. Acts 16 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
9. Acts 17 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
10. Acts 18 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
11. Col 2:14-17 - does this refer to the 7th day Sabbath?
12. Rom 14:5-6 - do we need to keep the Sabbath?
13. Gal 4:10-11 - do we need to keep the Sabbath?
14. 1 Cor 16:2 - regular first day services?
15. Acts 20:7 - a service on the first day of the week?
16. The Fathers know best - Sabbath or Sunday?
Hi I am curious and am searching on why should we keep the Sunday worship. That is the only question I want to know can you please tell me the answer. I'm not good with the computer So please can you explain.
My reply:
There is no need to keep the 7th day Sabbath any longer, because there is no biblical command to do so that applies to Christians1,2,3, the Apostles never set an example of doing so4,5,6,7,8,9,10, and we're told that the Sabbath is only a shadow of a greater reality we have experienced11,12,13.
So, if Christians wanted to keep a weekly day special, the natural day would be Sunday, the weekly anniversary of Jesus' resurrection. The Bible indicates that this took place14,15, and other Christian writings from the first and second century are explicit about this16.
Jesus told the Apostles that whatever they bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven. The Christian community has chosen to celebrate Jesus' resurrection as a weekly event, and this has taken place from the beginning of Christianity. To avoid sharing in this weekly celebration is to separate oneself from the united will of Christians from the time of the Apostles.
I've stuck in footnotes to articles on my website, and one from Catholic Answers. At this time of night I don't feel like tracking down the others I could reference.
References:
1. Matt 5 - will the law never pass away?
2. Mark 2/Matt 12/Luke 6 - was the Sabbath made for all mankind to keep?
3. Matt 24 - pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day?
4. Luke 4 - did Jesus set an example of Sabbath keeping for us?
5. Acts 1 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
6. Acts 13 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
7. Acts 15 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
8. Acts 16 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
9. Acts 17 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
10. Acts 18 - do Christians keep the Sabbath in Acts?
11. Col 2:14-17 - does this refer to the 7th day Sabbath?
12. Rom 14:5-6 - do we need to keep the Sabbath?
13. Gal 4:10-11 - do we need to keep the Sabbath?
14. 1 Cor 16:2 - regular first day services?
15. Acts 20:7 - a service on the first day of the week?
16. The Fathers know best - Sabbath or Sunday?
It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-Day Adventist
August 24, 2008, 1:45 am
Teresa and Arthur Beem resigned from the Adventist denomination in 2002. Their resignation letter was made public and was widely discussed in cyberspace. Since then, they have written a book to let people know about their experience in, and leaving, the Adventist movement. This is their continuing saga.
Their book, "It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-Day Adventist", covers the problems with Adventist theology that need to be dealt with by those leaving, as well as those who remain. Adventism clearly needs a reform - from its practices regarding abortion, to the Sabbath, to theology that even its leaders admit can't be confirmed using the Bible alone, which they claim is their standard.
This is the cover:
Available from Amazon and published by Booksurge.
They also have a blog with the same name.
For those who have left Adventism and feel guilt; for those Adventists who have family members who have left Adventism and wonder about the sincerity involved, and even whether or not their family members are still Christian; for those contemplating leaving; or simply for those who just want to know more about this religion ... this is definitely worth reading.
Their book, "It's Ok Not to be a Seventh-Day Adventist", covers the problems with Adventist theology that need to be dealt with by those leaving, as well as those who remain. Adventism clearly needs a reform - from its practices regarding abortion, to the Sabbath, to theology that even its leaders admit can't be confirmed using the Bible alone, which they claim is their standard.
This is the cover:
Available from Amazon and published by Booksurge.
They also have a blog with the same name.
For those who have left Adventism and feel guilt; for those Adventists who have family members who have left Adventism and wonder about the sincerity involved, and even whether or not their family members are still Christian; for those contemplating leaving; or simply for those who just want to know more about this religion ... this is definitely worth reading.
Tiny urls
July 6, 2008, 4:01 pm
TinyUrl allows limited customisation of the urls it makes tiny:
http://tinyurl.com/hubbard, for instance, goes to Stop Scientology
http://tinyurl.com/dianetics takes you to Wikipedia's page on Scientology
And lastly, http://tinyurl.com/sabbathday takes you to someone's ... whose, I wonder?? ... webpage on the biblical issues related to 7th day Sabbath observance by Christians.
http://tinyurl.com/hubbard, for instance, goes to Stop Scientology
http://tinyurl.com/dianetics takes you to Wikipedia's page on Scientology
And lastly, http://tinyurl.com/sabbathday takes you to someone's ... whose, I wonder?? ... webpage on the biblical issues related to 7th day Sabbath observance by Christians.
Operating Thetan - Scientology "bible" online
July 6, 2008, 3:49 pm
The full document entitled "The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology" by L Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology cult, is available online for download, probably for the first time ever.
Browsing through it, one sees some rather odd ideas. Use the search option in the PDF reader to find the topics mentioned in the reports below.
612 pages, including scans of Hubbard's own notes, make it a long read. But interesting - fascinating nutty bits about Xenu and telepathy and other such drivel.
The Scientology cult has tried to have it removed, thus indirectly verifying that this is a real Scientology document.
It doesn't look like they'll be successful in getting WikiLeaks to remove it, but in case they do, people should download it and share it on all possible forums, such as peer-to-peer things like LimeWire, etc.
The document can be downloaded from this page:
Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan documents
Direct link to the PDF: HERE and HERE
Browsing through it, one sees some rather odd ideas. Use the search option in the PDF reader to find the topics mentioned in the reports below.
612 pages, including scans of Hubbard's own notes, make it a long read. But interesting - fascinating nutty bits about Xenu and telepathy and other such drivel.
The Scientology cult has tried to have it removed, thus indirectly verifying that this is a real Scientology document.
It doesn't look like they'll be successful in getting WikiLeaks to remove it, but in case they do, people should download it and share it on all possible forums, such as peer-to-peer things like LimeWire, etc.
The document can be downloaded from this page:
Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan documents
Direct link to the PDF: HERE and HERE
Related stories and discussions of the document:
Church of Scientology's 'Operating Thetan' documents leaked online
Scientology threatens Wikileaks over secret cult bibles
On a similar topic of Scientology secrets being revealed over WikiLeaks:
Church of Scientology Office of Special Affairs and Frank Oliver
The Office of Special Affairs is the black-ops unit of the cult.
I bet a lot of Scientologists are off to check their readings on their E-meter, and maybe get it to treat their stress.
The General Conference
June 17, 2008, 6:23 pm
Someone asked the following question, which I can't answer, so I'll leave it open here for a while:
My answer would be:
My questions are: what are the limits to the jurisdiction of the SDA General Conference, and how - in practice - do people decide whether or not a General Conference decision has been successfully "shown" to conflict with the word of God?
These are two clear limits to General Conference decisions set out in their Church Manual (17th ed) but I don't really see how, in practice, such limits actually exist.
These are two clear limits to General Conference decisions set out in their Church Manual (17th ed) but I don't really see how, in practice, such limits actually exist.
My answer would be:
My understanding is that the GC would define the official beliefs of the Adventist church, but to what extent the laity get to voice their views I don't know. I don't know how the GC is limited in a practical sense by the manual you reference.
Back at last
June 17, 2008, 6:20 pm
I've been absent from this blog and my other one for several months. Work has been busy, and various other things have gone wrong. Work isn't going to get less busy, but I'm going to do my best to set aside time for this.
The Latin Mass in Africa - contacts
July 28, 2007, 8:37 pm
Over at LumenGentleman's site, the Summorum Pontificum Contact Database has been set up.
So far, only 3 from South Africa - one from Onderstepoort, the country's veterinary centre, and two from the Eastern Cape - me and someone from Grahamstown. Quite far, and I'd hope for something closer, but I've never visited Grahamstown, and I might if they have the Latin Mass in its extraordinary form.
I went to Mass here in Umtata tonight. This time they said the creed. Communion was via the "take and dip" method, with no extraordinary minister of the Eucharist assisting - the chalice was on the altar, the priest down below. Interestingly, half the congregation didn't self-communicate. And at least they said the creed this time.
If you're from South Africa, and want to see more use of the 1500 year old liturgy, the one used at Vatican II, also known as the Tridentine Mass, the old Latin Mass, the Liturgy of Pope Pius V, celebrated according to the missal published by Blessed John XXIII, then go and register as a contact.
So far, only 3 from South Africa - one from Onderstepoort, the country's veterinary centre, and two from the Eastern Cape - me and someone from Grahamstown. Quite far, and I'd hope for something closer, but I've never visited Grahamstown, and I might if they have the Latin Mass in its extraordinary form.
I went to Mass here in Umtata tonight. This time they said the creed. Communion was via the "take and dip" method, with no extraordinary minister of the Eucharist assisting - the chalice was on the altar, the priest down below. Interestingly, half the congregation didn't self-communicate. And at least they said the creed this time.
If you're from South Africa, and want to see more use of the 1500 year old liturgy, the one used at Vatican II, also known as the Tridentine Mass, the old Latin Mass, the Liturgy of Pope Pius V, celebrated according to the missal published by Blessed John XXIII, then go and register as a contact.
Those arrogant Apostles
July 15, 2007, 12:08 am
This letter is certainly food for thought:
Is that how we should respond?
Roland S. Martin, a contributor to CNN, has pretty much said that. Except he aimed his statements at HH Pope Benedict XVI and the recent statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The letter you see above is a parody of Martin's letter, written by me, to depict what an early dissenter from the Apostolic faith may have said back then.
Martin's blog contains the same CNN article.
The original Christian Church wasn't named "Catholic" back then - that is a name that was applied a bit later, and became more concrete as time went on. Should we expect the Christian Church of the twenty-first century to view itself any differently than the Christian Church of the first century? The way Catholics see it, we're just standing up for the same truth that the Apostles did. To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn't compromise on this issue either.
I admire the Pope and the CDF for their clear statement. I also admire them for acknowledging that those who, for no fault of their own, are outside of the original Christian Church, are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit separated. Like the Gnostics and others, they're perfect brothers and sisters in Christ, but in imperfect union with the original faith.
For more commentary on Martin's objections, go to Jimmy Akin's blog.
Those who are up in arms of the proclamation by the Apostles that the only true faith in the world is that which they taught shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to old men trying to get a little attention.
For John to even suggest in his second letter that those of us who reject the Apostles' claims about Jesus coming in the "flesh" shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.
Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Christian.
That's right, I was born and raised in the Christian Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in -- the 3rd community church in Corinth -- took place in my grandparents' living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent assisting at the liturgies, as the Christian youth organization leader, dedicated student of the Apostles' writings, and constantly "breaking bread."
And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. Luke even recorded that Philip explained the Scriptures to people, because they couldn't otherwise understand what they read. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same letters the Apostles wrote passed out by the church, recite the readings from the Torah, and hear a normally bland homily.
That isn't always the case at some Christian churches. Paul's disciples will surely have your soul jumping with their strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action. You'll even stay up past midnight, and those who injure themselves due to tiredness will be healed.
Yet as I reflect on my years as a Christian, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.
And that's why the Apostles are meaningless, along with their decision to re-state the oneness of the "Body of Christ". Last year, Paul released a document to the Corinthians correcting interpretations of the First Jerusalem Council, which some say modernized the church, allowing Gentiles in. But for hardliners like Paul, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.
But what ticked folks off was Paul's assertion in the 10-page follow-up document released this week that the only Apostles that can call themselves true Apostles are ones that can trace their teachings back to Jesus Christ. He even calls the rest "false apostles" and "deceitful workers."
Peter has backed this up, calling teachings other than theirs "damnable heresies."
This is nothing but a naked attempt by Peter and Paul to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Christian Church considering the Apostles to have been given authority to teach by Jesus. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a truth to be most important. What was? Love your neighbour. Love God. With all your heart, mind, and soul.
It doesn't matter what the Apostles have to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. All who follow Jesus - Gnostics, Judaisers, Nicolaitans - believe in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.
Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Paul or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.
It is these kinds of missives by the Apostles that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.
Non-Apostolic leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let the Apostles keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 10-page document will.
For John to even suggest in his second letter that those of us who reject the Apostles' claims about Jesus coming in the "flesh" shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.
Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Christian.
That's right, I was born and raised in the Christian Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in -- the 3rd community church in Corinth -- took place in my grandparents' living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent assisting at the liturgies, as the Christian youth organization leader, dedicated student of the Apostles' writings, and constantly "breaking bread."
And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. Luke even recorded that Philip explained the Scriptures to people, because they couldn't otherwise understand what they read. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same letters the Apostles wrote passed out by the church, recite the readings from the Torah, and hear a normally bland homily.
That isn't always the case at some Christian churches. Paul's disciples will surely have your soul jumping with their strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action. You'll even stay up past midnight, and those who injure themselves due to tiredness will be healed.
Yet as I reflect on my years as a Christian, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.
And that's why the Apostles are meaningless, along with their decision to re-state the oneness of the "Body of Christ". Last year, Paul released a document to the Corinthians correcting interpretations of the First Jerusalem Council, which some say modernized the church, allowing Gentiles in. But for hardliners like Paul, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.
But what ticked folks off was Paul's assertion in the 10-page follow-up document released this week that the only Apostles that can call themselves true Apostles are ones that can trace their teachings back to Jesus Christ. He even calls the rest "false apostles" and "deceitful workers."
Peter has backed this up, calling teachings other than theirs "damnable heresies."
This is nothing but a naked attempt by Peter and Paul to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Christian Church considering the Apostles to have been given authority to teach by Jesus. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a truth to be most important. What was? Love your neighbour. Love God. With all your heart, mind, and soul.
It doesn't matter what the Apostles have to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. All who follow Jesus - Gnostics, Judaisers, Nicolaitans - believe in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ.
Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Paul or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church.
It is these kinds of missives by the Apostles that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide.
Non-Apostolic leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let the Apostles keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 10-page document will.
Is that how we should respond?
Roland S. Martin, a contributor to CNN, has pretty much said that. Except he aimed his statements at HH Pope Benedict XVI and the recent statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The letter you see above is a parody of Martin's letter, written by me, to depict what an early dissenter from the Apostolic faith may have said back then.
Martin's blog contains the same CNN article.
The original Christian Church wasn't named "Catholic" back then - that is a name that was applied a bit later, and became more concrete as time went on. Should we expect the Christian Church of the twenty-first century to view itself any differently than the Christian Church of the first century? The way Catholics see it, we're just standing up for the same truth that the Apostles did. To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn't compromise on this issue either.
I admire the Pope and the CDF for their clear statement. I also admire them for acknowledging that those who, for no fault of their own, are outside of the original Christian Church, are still our brothers and sisters in Christ, albeit separated. Like the Gnostics and others, they're perfect brothers and sisters in Christ, but in imperfect union with the original faith.
For more commentary on Martin's objections, go to Jimmy Akin's blog.
Sacraments
July 5, 2007, 7:19 pm
My second post at Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel has just gone online.
It is entitled "God reaching out through space and time" and deals with sacraments, hoping to explain in less mystifying terms, and more in terms of Adventists' experience, how we view sacraments.
It is entitled "God reaching out through space and time" and deals with sacraments, hoping to explain in less mystifying terms, and more in terms of Adventists' experience, how we view sacraments.
Closed Communion and Catholic sacraments
July 3, 2007, 4:07 pm
There are a few comments going on at the end of one of my posts, mainly regarding closed communion and Catholic sacraments being available to non-Catholics.
It's the Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel post ... and I hope to get another one up on that blog by the end of the weekend.
It's the Re-Inventing the Adventist Wheel post ... and I hope to get another one up on that blog by the end of the weekend.
Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel
May 12, 2007, 9:33 pm
I have been invited to be a contributor on one of the progressive Adventist blogs out there in the Adventist blogosphere - Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel.
The blog is Adventist, and I am Catholic, and have never been Adventist. Between this blog and my website, I deal with a lot of issues relating to Adventism from a Catholic perspective, and mostly from a defensive apologetics angle.
Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel is not the same brand of Adventism that puts up billboards claiming that the pope is the Beast of Revelation - the form of Adventism I first came across, that resulted in me wanting to publically defend my faith. Progressive Adventism has moved beyond the focus on the Beast and the Pope and Mary and the like, and focusses on their experience of the Gospel.
Since the Gospel is shared by both sides, this is an opportunity for both sides to discover what they really have in common, and to discover what aspects of the other side can legitimately be accepted by each tradition, and to clarify issues of misunderstanding that is all too common. It's like a breath of fresh air for me - a discussion instead of a continuous battle against misconceptions.
God's visible grace is the title of my first post there, and this is the post by Marcel introducing me.
The blog is Adventist, and I am Catholic, and have never been Adventist. Between this blog and my website, I deal with a lot of issues relating to Adventism from a Catholic perspective, and mostly from a defensive apologetics angle.
Re-inventing the Adventist Wheel is not the same brand of Adventism that puts up billboards claiming that the pope is the Beast of Revelation - the form of Adventism I first came across, that resulted in me wanting to publically defend my faith. Progressive Adventism has moved beyond the focus on the Beast and the Pope and Mary and the like, and focusses on their experience of the Gospel.
Since the Gospel is shared by both sides, this is an opportunity for both sides to discover what they really have in common, and to discover what aspects of the other side can legitimately be accepted by each tradition, and to clarify issues of misunderstanding that is all too common. It's like a breath of fresh air for me - a discussion instead of a continuous battle against misconceptions.
God's visible grace is the title of my first post there, and this is the post by Marcel introducing me.
Dr Francis Beckwith comes home
May 4, 2007, 10:51 pm
Dr Francis Beckwith, current president of the Evangelical Theological Society, has converted back to Catholicisim.
Two worthwhile blog posts on this:
Jimmy Akin's blog
Dave Armstrong's blog ...
Two worthwhile blog posts on this:
Jimmy Akin's blog
Dave Armstrong's blog ...
If the BOSS won't give you water, you agree to die
May 4, 2007, 8:42 pmNearly a year later, documents obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act reveal those and other previously undisclosed details of what turned out to be a death march for Buschow. They also raise questions about the judgments and priorities of the guides at the Boulder Outdoor Survival School. What matters more: the customer's welfare or his quest?
This is the sickest story I've heard for a long time. Found via Bill Cork's blog. The original here in 5 pages, and comments; the printable version here in 1 page.
Moral of the story: Money determines the survival of the fittest.
Limbo, or do dead babies go to hell?
April 22, 2007, 8:40 pm
Recently, the Vatican's International Theological Commission allegedly released a document indicating that Limbo, the place where unbaptised babies go after death, may be restrictive, and that there are good reasons to hope that they might be in heaven. (Also see the Pontifications blog.)
This has caused some consternation in some corners of the Church. But then so did the concept that God could understand languages other than Latin. Some cling to the idea that Limbo is a formal part of the Tradition of the Church, when really it isn't, as can be seen by looking at the hopes and prayers of the saints throughout the centuries. It certainly has never been defined as such, and I've only seen claims regarding texts explained better elsewhere.
So I took a look at some of what HH Pope Benedict XVI said prior to his becoming pope.
This is a very wise man. I've always been impressed by him, and this leads me to believe that he thinks at a level far above most. He's orthodox, very much so, in his theology, and he's not going to go around approving documents that are not orthodox in their teachings.
Some say that he's ignoring tradition - no he's not. He has it very well understood. He knows what the history of limbo is, and knows where it can and can't go. Think again.
Some say he's fallen prey to the "hell doesn't exist and because God loves all people, all people will be saved" mentality. Some say that he's fallen prey to the modern lovey cuddley idea that punishment is bad and cute babies can't be punished. In reality, he's far too smart and far too orthodox for that. Think again.
Some say that the idea that the unbaptised can go to heaven detracts from the importance of the teaching that salvation comes through Christ alone. In reality, that is far from the truth.
HH Benedict XVI has shown that he can, without betraying the historical truths contained in the Apolostic faith taught by the Catholic Church, preach God's love and mercy by raising our understanding of those truths beyond the rigid interpretations required by a need for defensiveness and protectiveness, as is often the case in apologetics, canon law, and other branches of theology.
I'm hoping for more incredible insights from one of the most brilliant minds God has given to lead the Church. Hopefully more will be said, from him directly, on this issue. God is not the abortionist of the soul.
This has caused some consternation in some corners of the Church. But then so did the concept that God could understand languages other than Latin. Some cling to the idea that Limbo is a formal part of the Tradition of the Church, when really it isn't, as can be seen by looking at the hopes and prayers of the saints throughout the centuries. It certainly has never been defined as such, and I've only seen claims regarding texts explained better elsewhere.
So I took a look at some of what HH Pope Benedict XVI said prior to his becoming pope.
This is a very wise man. I've always been impressed by him, and this leads me to believe that he thinks at a level far above most. He's orthodox, very much so, in his theology, and he's not going to go around approving documents that are not orthodox in their teachings.
Some say that he's ignoring tradition - no he's not. He has it very well understood. He knows what the history of limbo is, and knows where it can and can't go. Think again.
Some say he's fallen prey to the "hell doesn't exist and because God loves all people, all people will be saved" mentality. Some say that he's fallen prey to the modern lovey cuddley idea that punishment is bad and cute babies can't be punished. In reality, he's far too smart and far too orthodox for that. Think again.
Some say that the idea that the unbaptised can go to heaven detracts from the importance of the teaching that salvation comes through Christ alone. In reality, that is far from the truth.
HH Benedict XVI has shown that he can, without betraying the historical truths contained in the Apolostic faith taught by the Catholic Church, preach God's love and mercy by raising our understanding of those truths beyond the rigid interpretations required by a need for defensiveness and protectiveness, as is often the case in apologetics, canon law, and other branches of theology.
I'm hoping for more incredible insights from one of the most brilliant minds God has given to lead the Church. Hopefully more will be said, from him directly, on this issue. God is not the abortionist of the soul.
| Some worthwhile reading: Limbo In Limbo? ... by Jimmy Akin Development and Negation III: limbo ... by Michael Liccione Limbo ... by Alvin Kimel [a 5-part series; each part separately below] Limbo: Doctrinal Development in Action ... by Alvin Kimel Evangelium Vitae ... HH Pope John Paul IIConsigning Limbo to Oblivion ... by Alvin Kimel Keeping the kids in limbo ... by Alvin Kimel The doubt that leads to limbo ... by Alvin Kimel The emptiness of limbo ... by Alvin Kimel |