Is the Pope the Vicar of Christ? Can he change God's laws?
rasell
refers to as "a vertiable encyclopedia of knowledge" and "a precious
mine of information," says in its article on the pope that "the pope
is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but
as if were God, and the vicar of God...The pope is of so great
authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret divine
laws." (translated from Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art.
"Papa," II, Vol VI, pp.26-29)
About 1400 AD Petrus de Ancharano asserted that “the pope can modify
divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts in
the place of God upon earth, with the fullest power of binding and
loosing his sheep”
This fulfils the prophecy in Daniel 7:25 that the little horn would
speak great words against the Most High, and the prophecy of 2
Thessalonians 2:4 that "he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God".
At the council of Trent Gaspare de Fosso archbishop of Reggio said
that the authority of the church was illustrated by the fact that
“(for He says He has come to fulfil the law, not to destroy it), but
they have been changed by the authority of the church.”
In a best selling book, The Faith of Millions, John A O’Brien a RC
scholar said,
“Since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it
curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly
from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of
Saturday? Yes of course it is inconsistent.”
In the 1977 edition of the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine
there were these questions:
“Q. Which day is the Sabbath?
“A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
“Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
“A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church
transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
(Peter Geiermann, The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine
(Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1977), p. 50)
John Eck, a defender of the Catholic faith attacked Luther the
reformer by saying:
“Scripture teaches: “Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days
shall you labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the
Sabbath day of the Lord your God”, etc. Yet, the church has changed
the Sabbath into Sunday on its own authority, on which you [Luther]
have no Scripture.”
(John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other
Enemies of the Church, trans. Ford L. Battles, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1979), p. 13)
chorl...@gmail.com
But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
vegetarianism.
Acts 20:7 clearly indicates a church meeting led by Paul on the first
day of the week: this would have been before the primacy of the Roman
Church.
One of the problems with splinter groups within the the church (and
the Seventh Day Adventist have undergone a willing transformation from
being an overtly exclusivist sect{they are the only ones with THE
TRUTH and salvation etc... a bit like the RCs} to being another
Protestant denomination) is that they start off with charismatic
leaders who have a calling and are blessed and lead others into a
fellowship which is blessed and then they become mini-israelites and
believe that they are the [only] chosen ones...
David
Michael J Davis
>Lucius Ferraris in Prompta Bibliotheca, which the Catholic Encylopedia
>refers to as "a vertiable encyclopedia of knowledge" and "a precious
>mine of information," says in its article on the pope that "the pope
>is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but
>as if were God, and the vicar of God...The pope is of so great
>authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret divine
>laws." (translated from Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art.
>"Papa," II, Vol VI, pp.26-29)
1. Please quote the source of this document, I can't find it on-line.
>
>About 1400 AD Petrus de Ancharano asserted that “the pope can modify
>divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts in
>the place of God upon earth, with the fullest power of binding and
>loosing his sheep”
2. Please can you quote the original?
Petrus de Ancharano was a canon lawyer, who wrote considerably about
Pope Gregory IX's canon law revisions. My guess is this is a deliberate
misquote - close enough to the truth, but in translation slightly
distorted. Consider... Matt 18:18
We've had a number of mischievous quotes that have been based on what
someone is reported to have said in a different language and in another
context. There was a recent (last fortnight) on uk.r.c. I'm sure you
have too much integrity to play that game, but you shouldn't believe all
you read.
>This fulfils the prophecy in Daniel 7:25 that the little horn would
>speak great words against the Most High, and the prophecy of 2
>Thessalonians 2:4 that "he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
>shewing himself that he is God".
And on whose authority are you interpreting prophesies?
>At the council of Trent Gaspare de Fosso archbishop of Reggio said
>that the authority of the church was illustrated by the fact that
>“(for He says He has come to fulfil the law, not to destroy it), but
>they have been changed by the authority of the church.”
Don't understand that - what are you saying?
>
>In a best selling book, The Faith of Millions, John A O’Brien a RC
>scholar said,
>“Since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn’t it
>curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly
>from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of
>Saturday? Yes of course it is inconsistent.”
You wouldn't be judging the RCC on the basis of what it celebrates,
would you?
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,
or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration
or a Sabbath day. Col 2:16 (NIV)
>In the 1977 edition of the Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine
>there were these questions:
>
>“Q. Which day is the Sabbath?
>“A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
>“Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
>“A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church
>transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”
>(Peter Geiermann, The Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine
>(Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1977), p. 50)
Once again, the Church (the whole Church) met to celebrate the day of
Resurrection. See:-
Matt 28:1
Mark 16:2
Mark 16:9
Luke 24:1
John 20:1
John 20:19
Acts 20:7
1 Cor 16:2
There is no record of the post Pentecost church meeting on the Sabbath.
>John Eck, a defender of the Catholic faith attacked Luther the
>reformer by saying:
>“Scripture teaches: “Remember to hallow the Sabbath day; six days
>shall you labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is the
>Sabbath day of the Lord your God”, etc. Yet, the church has changed
>the Sabbath into Sunday on its own authority, on which you [Luther]
>have no Scripture.”
>(John Eck, Enchiridion of Commonplaces Against Luther and Other
>Enemies of the Church, trans. Ford L. Battles, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids:
>Baker, 1979), p. 13)
Well, I'd say to him what I said above. However, how does his argument
help your cause? I can find plenty of invective. Let's stick to facts,
shall we?
Firstly, where does your authority come from?
Mike
Alwyn
> rasell<marca...@hotmail.co.uk> was inspired to say
>> Lucius Ferraris in Prompta Bibliotheca, which the Catholic Encylopedia
>> refers to as "a vertiable encyclopedia of knowledge" and "a precious
>> mine of information," says in its article on the pope that "the pope
>> is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but
>> as if were God, and the vicar of God...The pope is of so great
>> authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret divine
>> laws." (translated from Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, art.
>> "Papa," II, Vol VI, pp.26-29)
>
> 1. Please quote the source of this document, I can't find it on-line.
<http://biblelight.net/1823-24.htm>
Alwyn
Michael J Davis
Thanks Alwyn - that purports to be a summary, isolated from context. I
was looking for the context.
Mike
Alwyn
>>
>> <http://biblelight.net/1823-24.htm>
>
> Thanks Alwyn - that purports to be a summary, isolated from context. I
> was looking for the context.
At your service:
<http://biblelight.net/prompta.htm>
I trust you can find what you want there, though you may need a
magnifying glass to read it.
Alwyn
Gareth McCaughan
"chorl...@hotmail.com" wrote:
[to Marc Rasell, who'd just quoted something in a translation whose
publisher is based in Grand Rapids:]
> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
> vegetarianism.
Er, you do know that Marc Rasell is a Seventh Day Adventist, right?
--
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc
Michael J Davis
>On 06/10/2010 22:20, Michael J Davis wrote:
>> Alwyn <al...@dircon.co.uk> was inspired to say
>>>> 1. Please quote the source of this document, I can't find it on-line.
>>>
>>> <http://biblelight.net/1823-24.htm>
>>
>> Thanks Alwyn - that purports to be a summary, isolated from context. I
>> was looking for the context.
>
>At your service:
><http://biblelight.net/prompta.htm>
>
>I trust you can find what you want there, though you may need a
>magnifying glass to read it.
;-)
Thanks again, I had already found that. I'm afraid such is the seductive
power of the Internet that one hopes to find the answer to every
question one seeks. I still have no knowledge of this guy's standing in
the Church. Just because the old and new Catholic Encyclopedia commend
him, doesn't mean that his works have RCC authority. And I note that
these documents are quoted on an SDA website and may therefore be
one-sided.
I fear I may not have the time to progress it further, so will attempt
to put myself in the appropriate mindset to explain it, which isn't that
difficult. It includes coping with the medieval mindset of the Pope as
having authority over Kings, something that we see differently today.
(My response will be to the original question.)
Mike
Alwyn
>
> Thanks again, I had already found that. I'm afraid such is the seductive
> power of the Internet that one hopes to find the answer to every
> question one seeks. I still have no knowledge of this guy's standing in
> the Church. Just because the old and new Catholic Encyclopedia commend
> him, doesn't mean that his works have RCC authority.
It presumably has an _Imprimatur_, i.e. the censor saw nothing in it
that was contrary to the Catholic faith.
> And I note that
> these documents are quoted on an SDA website and may therefore be
> one-sided.
I can't see that they are nothing other than honest quotations, whoever
makes them.
> I fear I may not have the time to progress it further, so will attempt
> to put myself in the appropriate mindset to explain it, which isn't that
> difficult. It includes coping with the medieval mindset of the Pope as
> having authority over Kings, something that we see differently today.
Well yes, but Ferraris lived in the eighteenth century, well after the
Counterrevolution. His work was published in Bologna, which was part of
the Papal States. You may recall that the pope remained a temporal ruler
until 1870 and made a big, big fuss about his loss of territory.
You may recaall Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors issued around this time.
The condemned statements include:
"in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion
should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of
all other forms of worship." (No. 77)
"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true
Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as
in the Catholic Church" (No. 18).
"the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the
Church." (No. 55)
"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by
the light of reason, he shall consider true." (No. 15) and that "it has
been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons
coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own
peculiar worship." (No. 78)
"the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to
terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization." (No. 80) (cf
Jamdudum cernimus)
If the Church has now changed its position on some of these matters, it
has not done so willingly but under great duress.
Alwyn
Alwyn
>
> Well yes, but Ferraris lived in the eighteenth century, well after the
> Counterrevolution.
Counter-Reformation, of course!
Alwyn
Robert Marshall
>
> Well yes, but Ferraris lived in the eighteenth century, well after the
> Counterrevolution.
A early Lapp counter? (yes I saw your correction)
Robert
--
Conformity means death for any community. A loyal opposition is a
necessity in any community Karol Wojtyla (1969)
Tony Gillam
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010, al...@dircon.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> Well yes, but Ferraris lived in the eighteenth century, well after
>> the Counterrevolution.
>
> A early Lapp counter? (yes I saw your correction)
>
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.BookOurVilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Michael J Davis
>>
>> Thanks again, I had already found that. I'm afraid such is the seductive
>> power of the Internet that one hopes to find the answer to every
>> question one seeks. I still have no knowledge of this guy's standing in
>> the Church. Just because the old and new Catholic Encyclopedia commend
>> him, doesn't mean that his works have RCC authority.
>
>It presumably has an _Imprimatur_, i.e. the censor saw nothing in it
>that was contrary to the Catholic faith.
>
>> And I note that
>> these documents are quoted on an SDA website and may therefore be
>> one-sided.
>
>I can't see that they are nothing other than honest quotations, whoever
>makes them.
>
>> I fear I may not have the time to progress it further, so will attempt
>> to put myself in the appropriate mindset to explain it, which isn't that
>> difficult. It includes coping with the medieval mindset of the Pope as
>> having authority over Kings, something that we see differently today.
>
>Well yes, but Ferraris lived in the eighteenth century, well after the
>Counterrevolution. His work was published in Bologna, which was part of
>the Papal States. You may recall that the pope remained a temporal
>ruler until 1870 and made a big, big fuss about his loss of territory.
Indeed.
>You may recaall Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors issued around this time.
>The condemned statements include:
>
>"in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic
>religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the
>exclusion of all other forms of worship." (No. 77)
>"Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true
>Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as
>in the Catholic Church" (No. 18).
>"the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from
>the Church." (No. 55)
>"every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided
>by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (No. 15) and that "it
>has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that
>persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of
>their own peculiar worship." (No. 78)
>"the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to
>terms with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization." (No. 80) (cf
>Jamdudum cernimus)
>
>If the Church has now changed its position on some of these matters, it
>has not done so willingly but under great duress.
I always like John Henry Newman's immediate response to them (and am
grateful to Wikipedia for this, and for the subsequent quote):-
***
"The Syllabus then has no dogmatic force; it addresses us, not in its
separate portions, but as a whole, and is to be received from the Pope
by an act of obedience, not of faith, that obedience being shown by
having recourse to the original and authoritative documents,
(Allocutions and the like,) to which the Syllabus pointedly refers.
Moreover, when we turn to those documents, which are authoritative, we
find the Syllabus cannot even be called an echo of the Apostolic Voice;
for, in matters in which wording is so important, it is not an exact
transcript of the words of the Pope, in its account of the errors
condemned, just as would be natural in what is an index for reference."
[JHN]
In the wake of the controversy following the document's release, Pius IX
referred to it as "raw meat needing to be cooked." However, others
within the church who supported the syllabus disagreed that there was
any misinterpretation of the condemnations. [Wiki unattributed comment]
***
It is, once again, necessary to remind the casual reader that the
overwhelming number of statements by a Pope are in no way infallible
(though frankly, there's a lot of good sense in the SoE) but indications
of the direction that particular Pope is pointing.
Just as a steersman adjusts course to meet particular waves and wind
gusts, so the gubernatorial expressions of each Pope tend to show the
threats he believes the Church is facing. The great popes[1] are the
ones who are looking forward, weaker ones deal with firefighting.
[1] For instance "Rerum Novarum" by Leo XIII (1891) was possibly the
first Christian social teaching regarding the Industrial Age.
Mike
Michael J Davis
OK - using these as reasonable translations of the original - ie.
effectively unbiassed - I'll try to explain. Those who start from an
anti Catholic pov will probably be unconvinced! ;-)
I love the way the biblelight website hightlights some useful RCC
websites, even flashing a '666' sign! LOL!!
I'm not sure that this commentary on the role of the Pope is
authoritative, but seems to refer to an earlier age, although written no
earlier than 1746.
Perhaps someone with better Latin than I can confirm the accuracy of
these translations.
"Papa tantae est auctoritatis et potestatis, ut possit quoque
leges divinas modificare, declarare, vel interpretari, ad num.
The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to
modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws.
"Papa jus divinum potest modificare, cum ejus potestas non sit
ex homine, sed ex Deo, et in terris Dei vices fungitur com
amplissima potestate oves suas ligandi, et solvendi"
"The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man
but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with
most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep.
Firstly, it must be understood that the Pope's *role* is seen by the RCC
as divinely appointed, through the appointment of Peter and the
subsequent line of succession, with the assurance of the Holy Spirit not
to lead the Church into error.
Two things derive from this:-
1. The Pope *as head of the Church*[1] and therefore speaking *for the
Church*, has the job of discerning and explaining God's will.
[1] i.e. not alone, but in conjunction with advisors and
councils, etc.
2. The Pope, in his role as pope, will not go against God's law nor
contradict scripture (whatever he may do in his private life).
Of course, the second quote refers to Matt 16:19 (cf 18:18).
So in these terms there is nothing particularly shocking about the
quotes, except for a little hyperbole.
But then, I, as a chosen Son of God, inhabited by the Holy Spirit as
royal prophet and priest, and destined to be perfected to shine with
glory in God's kingdom for ever and ever, would say that, wouldn't I?
(And *that's* not hyperbole!)
--
Mike
'The time has come to re-propose wholeheartedly to everyone this high standard
of ordinary Christian living: the whole life of the Christian community and of
Christian families must lead in this direction. It is also clear however that
the paths to holiness are personal and call for a genuine "training in
holiness", adapted to people's needs.' [JPII Novo Millennio Ineunte]
Phil
snip
Dear Rasell
The scriptures taught the Jews to observe the Sabbath.
It is part of the Law given to Moses under whcih the Jews were to live.
If you choose to observe a sabbath that is your choice, you are not
compelled or required to do so but you may freely choose to do so and you
may have it any day you choose.
If you try to compel or enforce the sabbath on those who do not wish to
observe it then you have stepped outside the Christian ethos.
The Law was given;
1) For a reason "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added
because of transgressions..." Gal 3:19
2) For a people "19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those
who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole
world held accountable to God."
3) For a time "It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom
the promise referred had come."
The first mention of the Sabbath is in exodus, before the Law of Moses there
was no sabbath for God's people, nowhere are Christians told to observe or
hold a sabbath and if we indeed have a sabbath it is something that is in
our future not our present.
9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who
enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one
will fall by following their example of disobedience.
may the grace of God go with you
Phil
Steve Hague
"Phil" <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:a3Yqo.21426$kJ2....@newsfe17.ams2...
Steve Hague
Kendall Down
> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
> vegetarianism.
What's wrong with vegetarianism - which in any case is far more linked
with New Age hippies than with Adventists, less than half of whom are
vegetarians.
> Acts 20:7 clearly indicates a church meeting led by Paul on the first
> day of the week: this would have been before the primacy of the Roman
> Church.
Try looking the verse up in the New English Bible or the Good News Bible
and then tell me that it clearly indicates Sunday observance. If
anything it supports Sabbath observance (though in reality, as a special
one-off before Paul left for good, it says nothing at all about regular
worship practices).
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Kendall Down
> Once again, the Church (the whole Church) met to celebrate the day of
> Resurrection. See:-
> Matt 28:1
Apparently it is only in Mike's Bible - no doubt handwritten in tatty
exercise books and with apostrophes before every letter 's' - that this
verse mentions the whole church meeting to celebrate the resurrection.
Even the Douai version doesn't say anything so silly.
> Mark 16:2
Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
> Mark 16:9
Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
> Luke 24:1
Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
> John 20:1
Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
> John 20:19
You will notice that in Mike's version, a prerequisite to having the
whole church meet is that you be scared of the Jews. This is an old,
traditional Catholic practice, probably due to the Apostolic Succession.
(Oh, and you should keep the doors locked.)
> Acts 20:7
Ah yes, a meeting on Saturday night celebrates the resurrection, which
took place on Sunday morning. You have to understand that no one had
wristwatches in the days when this happened, so you can't expect people
to be aware of the fact that Saturday night is not Sunday morning. They
got easily confused back then, what with all those succeeding apostles
and things.
> 1 Cor 16:2
This is a puzzling one because the verse tells you to do something at
home - not at church. Presumably in the Catholic church the "whole
church" goes around from one member's home to the next in order to
faithfully celebrate the resurrection by counting money. It probably has
something to do with the sale of indulgences or Peter's Pence or
something like that. Catholics do have some strange practices.
> There is no record of the post Pentecost church meeting on the Sabbath.
Apart, of course, from the Bible telling us that St Paul worshipped on
the Sabbath for 18 months in Corinth as well as various other places,
and church fathers (Catholics are big on tradition, in case you didn't
know that) stating that the whole world apart from Rome worships on the
Sabbath.
Do let me urge you to follow the Bible - that is, a normal, everyday
Bible that you can buy in W. H. Smiths or your local Christian bookshop.
As a guide to *Christian* practice, Mike's personal version does not
appear to be particularly safe.
John R
wrote:
>On 06/10/2010 15:53, chorl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
>> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
>> vegetarianism.
>
>What's wrong with vegetarianism - which in any case is far more linked
>with New Age hippies than with Adventists, less than half of whom are
>vegetarians.
Nothing wrong with vegetarianism, equally there is nothing wrong with
eating meat either, certainly not from God's perspective.
>> Acts 20:7 clearly indicates a church meeting led by Paul on the first
>> day of the week: this would have been before the primacy of the Roman
>> Church.
>
>Try looking the verse up in the New English Bible or the Good News Bible
>and then tell me that it clearly indicates Sunday observance. If
>anything it supports Sabbath observance (though in reality, as a special
>one-off before Paul left for good, it says nothing at all about regular
>worship practices).
"On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal.
Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he
was going to leave the next day" Good News Bible.
I can't find a NEB version online but I am assuming it also says
Saturday evening.
There is nothing in the Greek that suggests it is a Saturday evening
but even if it was, it still wouldn't imply Sabbath observance, which
is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
I agree that it doesn't inicate Sunday observance either, as the
disciples met most days and broke bread.
John R
wrote:
>> Acts 20:7
>
>Ah yes, a meeting on Saturday night celebrates the resurrection, which
>took place on Sunday morning. You have to understand that no one had
>wristwatches in the days when this happened, so you can't expect people
>to be aware of the fact that Saturday night is not Sunday morning. They
>got easily confused back then, what with all those succeeding apostles
>and things.
Since you have corrected Mike it's only fair I correct you :-)
Where in the text do you get the idea that it was a Saturday night????
Given Luke wasn't a Jew, I would plump for Sunday sometime.
Youngs Lliteral Version says this.
"And on the first of the week, the disciples having been gathered
together to break bread, Paul was discoursing to them, about to depart
on the morrow, he was also continuing the discourse till midnight"
I have already commented that this can't be quoted in support of
regular church worship on a Sunday.
>> There is no record of the post Pentecost church meeting on the Sabbath.
>
>Apart, of course, from the Bible telling us that St Paul worshipped on
>the Sabbath for 18 months in Corinth as well as various other places,
>and church fathers (Catholics are big on tradition, in case you didn't
>know that) stating that the whole world apart from Rome worships on the
>Sabbath.
Paul went into the synagogue to preach, he could hardly do that on a
Sunday!!!
Can you quote the sources that say the whole world apart from Rome
worshipped on a Saturday.
rasell
> 2. The Pope, in his role as pope, will not go against God's law nor
> contradict scripture (whatever he may do in his private life).
>
God's law says the Sabbath is on the 7th day, but the Church says it
changed it to the 1st day.
Where is the authority for such a change?
Marc
chorl...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, but I was countering one unwarranted assumption with another:
perhaps irony is lost on the net unless one makes it obvious
/irony.
David
rasell
I've posted several replies over the last couple of days but none of
them has appeared, perhaps they will soon, unless they have
disappeared somewhere.
rasell
>
> The scriptures taught the Jews to observe the Sabbath.
Genesis 2:2-3 the Sabbath was sanctified at Creation, the day after
Adam and Eve were created, to sanctify means to set apart as holy.
Luther said if Adam had not sinned he would still be keeping the
Sabbath today.
> It is part of the Law given to Moses under whcih the Jews were to live.
All the 10 commandments can be found before Moses:
1-2 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “Thou shalt not make
unto thee any graven image”
Gen. 35:2-3 Jacob instructed his family to put away foreign gods,
which included idols.
3 “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain”
Gen. 24:3 Eliezer was made to swear by the Lord to find a wife for
Isaac, but not one from the Canaanites; he was not to break his oath
which would have been profaning God’s name.
4 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”
Gen. 2:2-3 God made the Sabbath holy during the Creation week for Adam
and Eve.
5 “Honour thy father and thy mother”
Gen. 18:19 Abraham commanded his household after him.
6 “Thou shalt not kill”
Gen. 4:8-11 Cain murdered Abel.
7 “Thou shalt not commit adultery”
Gen. 39:9 Joseph refused to commit adultery which he said was a sin
against God.
8 “Thou shalt not steal”
Gen. 44:8 Joseph’s brothers recognised that it would be wrong to steal
from Pharaoh.
9 “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”
Gen. 27:11-12 Joseph deceived his father and suffered a long exile
from home as a consequence.
10 “Thou shalt not covet”
It is hard to find a direct reference, but it is implied in Genesis 27
when Jacob schemed to take the birthright from Esau. The breaking of
the other commandments such as stealing implies that coveting took
place beforehand.
> If you choose to observe a sabbath that is your choice, you are not
> compelled or required to do so but you may freely choose to do so and you
> may have it any day you choose.
Can you also say, if you choose not to murder that is your choice, you
are not compelled or required not to do so...
Or, if you choose not to commit adultery thats your choice because
only Jews have to remain faithful to their spouse...
> If you try to compel or enforce the sabbath on those who do not wish to
> observe it then you have stepped outside the Christian ethos.
Can I say, if you try to compel the command not to murder, you have
stepped outside the Chrsitian ethos...
> The Law was given;
>
> 1) For a reason "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added
> because of transgressions..." Gal 3:19
> 2) For a people "19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those
> who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole
> world held accountable to God."
> 3) For a time "It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom
> the promise referred had come."
These verses in Galatians speak of the whole Mosaic 613 regulations,
the Israelites in Egypt has lost sight of God's requirements and
needed extra guidance beyond the 10 commandments, as well as the 10
commandments in a written form. Having been slaves in an idolatrous
country, they have stopped observing the Sabbath, and were inclined to
idolatry.
> The first mention of the Sabbath is in exodus, before the Law of Moses there
> was no sabbath for God's people, nowhere are Christians told to observe or
> hold a sabbath and if we indeed have a sabbath it is something that is in
> our future not our present.
Clearly the weekly 7 day cycle began at creation, and the week is
referenced before Moses e.g. Jacob's marriage week. Noah let out the
dove every seven days. So a weekly cycle implies Sabbath keeping.
> 9There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10for anyone who
> enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
> 11Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one
> will fall by following their example of disobedience.
>
Hebrews 4 says nothing of the abolition of the Sabbath, rather is uses
the Sabbath as an illustration of our rest in Christ. Adam and both a
literal and spiritual rest and we can also, which is why the Sabbath
will be celebrated in heaven - Isa. 66:22-23. If I use marriage as an
illustration of our relationship with Christ does that mean we don't
need to observe literal marriage?
Both the RCC and Luther agreed that the 10 commandments were eternal
moral laws which had not been abolished, all the reformer said the 10
commandments were God's eternal moral law, it says as much in the
westminster confession still used by anglicans and methodists.
Marc
Adam Funk
> On 06/10/2010 15:53, chorl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
>> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
>> vegetarianism.
>
> What's wrong with vegetarianism -
I can't think of anything wrong with it, although it's a bit of a
stretch to claim Biblical support (unless you espouse the theory that
the long-term purpose of the Kashrut was to encourage it, although
that seems incompatible with the Passover instructions at least).
> which in any case is far more linked with New Age hippies than with
> Adventists, less than half of whom are vegetarians.
I expect it's probably a higher proportion than among most Christian
denominations --- is that right?
You might be interested in the "straight edge" punk subculture.
AFAIK, it's not an organized movement, but its adherents refrain from
various combinations of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, meat, caffeine, and
loose sex. (I think it was a reaction to the excesses of the other
punk scenes.) One of them recently published a book on nutrition and
health called (IANMTU) _Meat is for Pussies_.
http://www.blueridgeoutdoors.com/departments/news-briefs/meat-free-mosh-pit/
--
The earth belongs in usufruct to the living.
[Thomas Jefferson]
Gareth McCaughan
"chorl...@hotmail.com" wrote:
>> [to Marc Rasell, who'd just quoted something in a translation whose
>> publisher is based in Grand Rapids:]
>>
>>> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
>>> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
>>> vegetarianism.
>>
>> Er, you do know that Marc Rasell is a Seventh Day Adventist, right?
..
> No, but I was countering one unwarranted assumption with another:
Would you care to unpack that a bit?
> perhaps irony is lost on the net unless one makes it obvious
> /irony.
Perhaps it is. I'm afraid I'm rather dim and can't work out what
irony you were employing if you didn't, as you say, know that
Marc is an SDA.
Kendall Down
> The first mention of the Sabbath is in exodus
1. The first mention of the Sabbath in Exodus comes before the law,
whether of Moses or the Ten Commandments.
2. However the first mention of the Sabbath in the Bible is in Genesis,
2,000 years before the laws given to the Jews and less than 24 hours
after Creation.
You ought to read your Bible a bit more, Phil.
Frederick Williams
>
> On Oct 6, 4:33 pm, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Er, you do know that Marc Rasell is a Seventh Day Adventist, right?
>
> No, but I was countering one unwarranted assumption with another:
At news:4909A30F...@tesco.net or maybe
news:4909B731...@tesco.net I asked
Is there a list somewhere of the religious affiliations
--if any--of the regular posters to this group?
But there was no positive response.
["--" is supposed to be an em rule. I think a line may start with it.]
--
Needle, nardle, noo.
Kendall Down
> There is nothing in the Greek that suggests it is a Saturday evening
> but even if it was, it still wouldn't imply Sabbath observance, which
> is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
I wouldn't claim it as evidence for Saturday observance - which it
isn't. I merely point out that *if* it is evidence for anything, it
implies Sabbath rather than Sunday - and only do so when people whose
zeal outruns their knowledge post the verse as evidence for Sunday
observance.
> I agree that it doesn't inicate Sunday observance either, as the
> disciples met most days and broke bread.
Exactly.
Kendall Down
> Where in the text do you get the idea that it was a Saturday night????
> Given Luke wasn't a Jew, I would plump for Sunday sometime.
Well, it isn't just me: it's the translators of the NEB and GNB (and a
couple of other versions have a footnote pointing out that in a culture
where the day ended/began at sunset, the night of the first day of the
week had to be what we today call "Saturday night". Had it been Sunday
night, Luke would have written "in the evening on the second day of the
week".
> Youngs Lliteral Version says this.
> "And on the first of the week
Which is literally what the Greek says, but as it goes on to inform us
that it was the *night* of the first day of the week, it had to be what
we call Saturday night.
Irrespective of whether Sunday is sacred or not, you can't meet on
Saturday night to celebrate an event which happened early Sunday morning.
> Paul went into the synagogue to preach, he could hardly do that on a
> Sunday!!!
After a period he was expelled from the synagogue and hired a building
close by - yet apparently continued to meet on the Sabbath.
> Can you quote the sources that say the whole world apart from Rome
> worshipped on a Saturday.
The church historians Socrates and Sozomen, whose "Church History" you
can find on the internet if you hunt hard enough.
Kendall Down
> I can't think of anything wrong with it, although it's a bit of a
> stretch to claim Biblical support
Actually, I don't. Vegetarianism is the healthy lifestyle, which is why
more and more people are adopting it and the government is promoting it
as hard as it can without upsetting the farmers.
There is, however, Biblical support for the idea that the original diet
given to man was vegetarian and that heaven/the new earth will also
enjoy the same healthy diet.
> I expect it's probably a higher proportion than among most Christian
> denominations --- is that right?
Possibly.
> You might be interested in the "straight edge" punk subculture.
> AFAIK, it's not an organized movement, but its adherents refrain from
> various combinations of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, meat, caffeine, and
> loose sex.
Whatever their reasons, it sounds to me like a pretty good way to live.
Michael J Davis
Acts, as I've already pointed out. Which clearly showed how the early
church observed the (New) Lord's Day - that of resurrection.
Are you circumcised?
Mike
Michael J Davis
>On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:09:57 +0100, Kendall Down <kkd...@nwtv.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On 06/10/2010 15:53, chorl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>Nothing wrong with vegetarianism, equally there is nothing wrong with
>eating meat either, certainly not from God's perspective.
>
>>> Acts 20:7 clearly indicates a church meeting led by Paul on the first
>>> day of the week: this would have been before the primacy of the Roman
>>> Church.
>>
>>Try looking the verse up in the New English Bible or the Good News Bible
>>and then tell me that it clearly indicates Sunday observance. If
>>anything it supports Sabbath observance (though in reality, as a special
>>one-off before Paul left for good, it says nothing at all about regular
>>worship practices).
>
>"On Saturday evening we gathered together for the fellowship meal.
>Paul spoke to the people and kept on speaking until midnight, since he
>was going to leave the next day" Good News Bible.
>
>I can't find a NEB version online but I am assuming it also says
>Saturday evening.
Why don't you use a scholarly Bible - the Greek says first day of the
week The term 'sabbatoon' means 'week (i.e. the interval between
sabbaths) the word 'mia' means first; so it reads 'on the first day of
the week'
>
>There is nothing in the Greek that suggests it is a Saturday evening
>but even if it was, it still wouldn't imply Sabbath observance, which
>is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
>
>I agree that it doesn't inicate Sunday observance either, as the
>disciples met most days and broke bread.
It indicates they we meeting Sunday evening according to the
commentaries I can find.
Mike
Michael J Davis
Well said, John! I didn't bother to quote those as I thought it was
obvious!
>
>Can you quote the sources that say the whole world apart from Rome
>worshipped on a Saturday.
Mike
Michael J Davis
>On 06/10/2010 17:47, Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> Once again, the Church (the whole Church) met to celebrate the day of
>> Resurrection. See:-
>> Matt 28:1
>
>Apparently it is only in Mike's Bible - no doubt handwritten in tatty
>exercise books and with apostrophes before every letter 's' - that this
>verse mentions the whole church meeting to celebrate the resurrection.
>Even the Douai version doesn't say anything so silly.
>
>> Mark 16:2
>
>Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
>
>> Mark 16:9
>
>Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
>
>> Luke 24:1
>
>Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
>
>> John 20:1
>
>Repeat comment on Matt 28:1.
>
>> John 20:19
>
>You will notice that in Mike's version, a prerequisite to having the
>whole church meet is that you be scared of the Jews. This is an old,
>traditional Catholic practice, probably due to the Apostolic
>Succession. (Oh, and you should keep the doors locked.)
I quoted the above, not to show the church meeting, but to demonstrate
the numerous references to what happened on the first day of the week
and why, therefore, it was the practice to meet then.
>> Acts 20:7
>
>Ah yes, a meeting on Saturday night celebrates the resurrection, which
>took place on Sunday morning. You have to understand that no one had
>wristwatches in the days when this happened, so you can't expect people
>to be aware of the fact that Saturday night is not Sunday morning. They
>got easily confused back then, what with all those succeeding apostles
>and things.
Don't be daft - the first day of the week is referred to as in the other
cases.
>
>> 1 Cor 16:2
>
>This is a puzzling one because the verse tells you to do something at
>home - not at church. Presumably in the Catholic church the "whole
>church" goes around from one member's home to the next in order to
>faithfully celebrate the resurrection by counting money. It probably
>has something to do with the sale of indulgences or Peter's Pence or
>something like that. Catholics do have some strange practices.
'Church' doesn't mean a 'building'; it refers to an assembly of people.
So they met in someone's house. So don't show your ignorance by making
facile comments.
>> There is no record of the post Pentecost church meeting on the Sabbath.
>
>Apart, of course, from the Bible telling us that St Paul worshipped on
>the Sabbath for 18 months in Corinth as well as various other places,
>and church fathers (Catholics are big on tradition, in case you didn't
>know that) stating that the whole world apart from Rome worships on the
>Sabbath.
The only time it records Paul attending synagogues is on the Sabbath,
*in order to meet the Jews*. I think you're reading an SDA Bible.
>
>Do let me urge you to follow the Bible - that is, a normal, everyday
>Bible that you can buy in W. H. Smiths or your local Christian
>bookshop. As a guide to *Christian* practice, Mike's personal version
>does not appear to be particularly safe.
I note your usual reversion to ad hominem sarcasm when you can't answer
the point, Ken.
If you are referring to Acts 18:4 & 18:26, the above comment applies. If
not, would you care to tell me what you are talking about?
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<Please note that the Reply-To: address will remain in use for at least 30
days, but the sender and from addresses are not valid.>
<><
John R
I am in complete agreement. Please note it was Ken who implied
Saturday evening, not me :-)
>>There is nothing in the Greek that suggests it is a Saturday evening
>>but even if it was, it still wouldn't imply Sabbath observance, which
>>is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
>>
>>I agree that it doesn't inicate Sunday observance either, as the
>>disciples met most days and broke bread.
>
>It indicates they we meeting Sunday evening according to the
>commentaries I can find.
We simply don't know, other than the fact that the meeting started on
the first day of the week. Luke was a Gentile, so I am guessing
Sunday was the first day of the week for him, not Saturday evening.
John R
wrote:
>On 08/10/2010 12:41, John R wrote:
>
>> Where in the text do you get the idea that it was a Saturday night????
>> Given Luke wasn't a Jew, I would plump for Sunday sometime.
>
>Well, it isn't just me: it's the translators of the NEB and GNB (and a
>couple of other versions have a footnote pointing out that in a culture
>where the day ended/began at sunset, the night of the first day of the
>week had to be what we today call "Saturday night". Had it been Sunday
>night, Luke would have written "in the evening on the second day of the
>week".
>
>> Youngs Lliteral Version says this.
>> "And on the first of the week
>
>Which is literally what the Greek says, but as it goes on to inform us
>that it was the *night* of the first day of the week, it had to be what
>we call Saturday night.
All the text states is that it was the first day of the week, and Paul
preached up until midnight. So what's to say the meeting started on
Sunday, whilst it was still light, and went on until mdnight.
>Irrespective of whether Sunday is sacred or not, you can't meet on
>Saturday night to celebrate an event which happened early Sunday morning.
It was a apecial meeting that day because Paul was going away. Nothing
to do with remembering the resurrection.
>> Paul went into the synagogue to preach, he could hardly do that on a
>> Sunday!!!
>
>After a period he was expelled from the synagogue and hired a building
>close by - yet apparently continued to meet on the Sabbath.
Could you point me to the right chapter please, I would like to have a
look at that.
>> Can you quote the sources that say the whole world apart from Rome
>> worshipped on a Saturday.
>
>The church historians Socrates and Sozomen, whose "Church History" you
>can find on the internet if you hunt hard enough.
I will have a look at that, but it isn't quite the same as saying
"and church fathers (Catholics are big on tradition, in case you
didn't know that) stating that the whole world apart from Rome
worships on the Sabbath."
Kendall Down
> Acts, as I've already pointed out. Which clearly showed how the early
> church observed the (New) Lord's Day - that of resurrection.
Which clearly shows that on one occasion, when the popular and important
guest speaker was due to leave first thing on Sunday morning for a 40
mile hike over rough country (I've followed the route), the Christians
met on Saturday night to listen to his final sermon.
It's no wonder Protestants are dubious about Catholic treatment of the
Bible if your statement is an example of Catholic exegesis.
Kendall Down
> Why don't you use a scholarly Bible - the Greek says first day of the
> week The term 'sabbatoon' means 'week (i.e. the interval between
> sabbaths) the word 'mia' means first; so it reads 'on the first day of
> the week'
No one disputes that that is what the actual words say. The objection is
that the Greek words do not exactly map onto the English words, for the
simple reason that for Jews (and Christians) the day begins at sunset,
not sunrise nor midnight.
I'm surprised that you, a Catholic, have a problem with the concept.
After all, the Catholic church offers Saturday evening mass as an
alternative to Sunday mass for this very reason!
Kendall Down
> All the text states is that it was the first day of the week, and Paul
> preached up until midnight. So what's to say the meeting started on
> Sunday, whilst it was still light, and went on until mdnight.
That is possible, of course. No commentator or translator appears to
think it, but that proves nothing. More to the point, it would hardly be
the striking evidence for the church meeting on Sunday if the bulk of
the meeting was actually on Monday!
However to me, the significant point is the one you yourself make:
> It was a apecial meeting that day because Paul was going away. Nothing
> to do with remembering the resurrection.
Exactly! And nothing to do with normal church practice either.
> Could you point me to the right chapter please, I would like to have a
> look at that.
Acts 18:7
> "and church fathers (Catholics are big on tradition, in case you
> didn't know that) stating that the whole world apart from Rome
> worships on the Sabbath."
If you look them up you will find that I was more or less quoting their
actual words.
Kendall Down
> I quoted the above, not to show the church meeting, but to demonstrate
> the numerous references to what happened on the first day of the week
> and why, therefore, it was the practice to meet then.
Has anyone - even Marc - expressed doubt as to the fact that Christ rose
from the dead on Sunday?
>>> Acts 20:7
>> Ah yes, a meeting on Saturday night celebrates the resurrection, which
>> took place on Sunday morning. You have to understand that no one had
>> wristwatches in the days when this happened, so you can't expect
>> people to be aware of the fact that Saturday night is not Sunday
>> morning. They got easily confused back then, what with all those
>> succeeding apostles and things.
> Don't be daft - the first day of the week is referred to as in the other
> cases.
Of course, but whereas the other cases referred to "early in the
morning", Acts 20:7 refers to the evening.
> If you are referring to Acts 18:4 & 18:26, the above comment applies. If
> not, would you care to tell me what you are talking about?
Acts 18:7, which you unaccountably missed.
rasell
>
> Acts, as I've already pointed out. Which clearly showed how the early
> church observed the (New) Lord's Day - that of resurrection.
The first day of the week for Jews began on Saturday night, the
meeting went on all night, showing it was not a regular type of
meeting, then on Sunday morning Paul carried on his journey, showing
he did not regard it as a rest day.
> Are you circumcised?
>
Circumcision was given after the fall, the Sabbath before the fall as
part of Creation.
Marc
rasell
> It indicates they we meeting Sunday evening according to the
> commentaries I can find.
>
That is assuming Luke was using the Roman reckoning in this verse
rather than the Jewish.
In any case, an all night meeting called so Paul could continue his
journey the next day cannot be considered an example of a regular
practice.
Any "change" of the Sabbath would have been a major issue, and caused
controversy with the Jews, yet there is no mention of any change, and
the Jews never accuse Paul of Sabbath breaking.
Marc
rasell
> "chorley...@hotmail.com" wrote:
>
> [to Marc Rasell, who'd just quoted something in a translation whose
> publisher is based in Grand Rapids:]
>
> > But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
> > the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
> > vegetarianism.
>
>
> Gareth McCaughan
> sig under construc
I am a Seventh-day Adventist, don't see any heresy in vegetarianism,
this is only condemned for those involved in Gnostic ideas, but for
health reasons there is no problem, it was the original diet given to
man, and also will be in heaven.
Marc
rasell
My first post came back as undeliverable, so second attempt:
>
> 1. Please quote the source of this document, I can't find it on-line.
>
I think this has been covered now by previous posts.
>
> >About 1400 AD Petrus de Ancharano asserted that “the pope can modify
> >divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts in
> >the place of God upon earth, with the fullest power of binding and
> >loosing his sheep”
>
> 2. Please can you quote the original?
The same source: Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his
PromptaBibliotheca (“Handy Library”), Vol. 6 (Venetiis [Venice]:
GasparStorti, 1772), p. 29. Latin.
> >At the council of Trent Gaspare de Fosso archbishop of Reggio said
> >that the authority of the church was illustrated by the fact that
> >“(for He says He has come to fulfil the law, not to destroy it), but
> >they have been changed by the authority of the church.”
>
> Don't understand that - what are you saying?
>
The issue is about which has more authority, the Scriptures or
theChurch. Can the Church change the 10 commandments?
> You wouldn't be judging the RCC on the basis of what it celebrates,
> would you?
> Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,
> or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration
> or a Sabbath day. Col 2:16 (NIV)
>
There are a number of problems with associating Col. 2:16 with the
weekly Sabbath:
1. the definite article is not used in the Greek (a sabbath)
2. the term shadow is only ever applied to ritual laws and Sabbaths,
such as the Day of Atonement, or first and last day of Passover
3. The Greek word for festival (heorte) is used for pilgrimage feasts
to Jerusalem, hence does not include all ritual Sabbaths. The Hebrew
equivalent (hag) is related to the Arabic (haj)
4. the context suggests: angelology, asceticism, a sort of new age
philosophy mingled with a bit of Judaism and Christianity. Its about
people trying to be saved through mediating angels and punishing their
bodies, it is not a call to abolish the eternal moral law of God.
Rather it is saying salvation is only found in Jesus.
Marc
rasell
> In article <dpc4o7xitm....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 06/10/2010 15:53, chorley...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
> > >> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
> > >> vegetarianism.
>
> > > What's wrong with vegetarianism -
> > I can't think of anything wrong with it, although it's a bit of a
> > stretch to claim Biblical support (unless you espouse the theory that
> > the long-term purpose of the Kashrut was to encourage it, although
> > that seems incompatible with the Passover instructions at least).
>
> faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
> 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and
> the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for
> God has accepted him.
> (NIV Rom 14:2-3)
>
> Interpret as you wish.
>
> --
> Stuart Winsor
Context of meat offered to idols, rather than a health issue.
Marc
John R
<marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>On 10 Oct, 22:07, Michael J Davis <mjduse...@trustsof.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Acts, as I've already pointed out. Which clearly showed how the early
>> church observed the (New) Lord's Day - that of resurrection.
>
>The first day of the week for Jews began on Saturday night, the
>meeting went on all night, showing it was not a regular type of
>meeting, then on Sunday morning Paul carried on his journey, showing
>he did not regard it as a rest day.
I won't be around for a few days after tonight, but I couldn't leave
this one ignored. I agree that the meeting could have started on
Saturday night and Paul commence his jouney on Sunday.
However you simply can't state it as fact. The meeting may have
commence Sunday morning or Sunday afternoon, and conclude well into
the night. If it is unrealistic to assume a meeting could go on that
long, another hypothesis is that it was Summer and the meeting
commence mid Sunday evening, before Sunday. And thats assuming Luke
folowed the Jewish way rather than the Roman way.
All the Bible tells us is that the meeting commenced on the first day
of the week.
Gareth McCaughan
Kendall Down wrote:
> Has anyone - even Marc - expressed doubt as to the fact that Christ
> rose from the dead on Sunday?
Me :-).
Gareth McCaughan
Marc Rasell wrote:
[someone else:]
>>> But anything which comes out of Grand Rapids has to be suspect due to
>>> the Seventh Day Adventist heresy: next thing you will be advocating
>>> vegetarianism.
[me:]
>> Er, you do know that Marc Rasell is a Seventh Day Adventist, right?
[Marc:]
> I am a Seventh-day Adventist, don't see any heresy in vegetarianism,
> this is only condemned for those involved in Gnostic ideas, but for
> health reasons there is no problem, it was the original diet given to
> man, and also will be in heaven.
For what it's worth, I also don't see any heresy in vegetarianism
(though there might be heresy in claiming that vegetarianism is
commanded by the NT or Christian tradition or something).
John R
wrote:
>On 11/10/2010 01:49, John R wrote:
>>>Apart, of course, from the Bible telling us that St Paul worshipped on
>>>the Sabbath for 18 months in Corinth as well as various other places,
>> Could you point me to the right chapter please, I would like to have a
>> look at that.
>
>Acts 18:7
Eh??? Acts 18:7 says Paul left the synagogue and popped next door to
see Titius Justus. I've continued reading and there is no mention of
whether Paul worshipped on a Saturday.
>> "and church fathers (Catholics are big on tradition, in case you
>> didn't know that) stating that the whole world apart from Rome
>> worships on the Sabbath."
>
>If you look them up you will find that I was more or less quoting their
>actual words.
I hit on a website last night that mentions them. I will study this
area because I find it quite interesting whether the day was changed
wrongly or not.
Robert Billing
> I am a Seventh-day Adventist, don't see any heresy in vegetarianism,
> this is only condemned for those involved in Gnostic ideas, but for
> health reasons there is no problem, it was the original diet given to
> man, and also will be in heaven.
You don't really believe in "Thou shalt not kill," then?
Kendall Down
> Eh??? Acts 18:7 says Paul left the synagogue and popped next door to
> see Titius Justus. I've continued reading and there is no mention of
> whether Paul worshipped on a Saturday.
I think that is a somewhat perverse reading of the text. He didn't
"pop", he entered in, using the house as either a residence or a place
for teaching. The next chapter describes how he did something similar in
Ephesus: when he was expelled from the synagogue he hired the "school"
or "lecture hall" of Tyrannus.
> I hit on a website last night that mentions them. I will study this
> area because I find it quite interesting whether the day was changed
> wrongly or not.
I forget which website I found them on; it could have been the Perseus
Project or the Aetherial Library or Project Gutenberg, it even some
other site entirely. However the full text of both men is out there
somewhere.
There are two interesting points about what they say. The first is the
fact - and I assume they are correct in what they say - that Rome and
Alexandria are the only places which do not worship on Saturday. That is
not to say that the Christians did not have a Sunday morning service to
celebrate the Resurrection, just that they did not regard Sunday as a
day of rest or a sabbath.
The second is that both men mention this fact in the middle of a whole
list of differences in Christian practice and as part of an argument
against uniformity in observing Easter. Their claim is that if
Christians can be diverse in this and that and the other, then why can
they not be diverse also in the date of Easter?
In other words, they did not regard the difference between Saturday and
Sunday observance as terribly important - it was on a par with standing
or not standing to hear the Gospel.
rasell
>
> All the Bible tells us is that the meeting commenced on the first day
> of the week.
Whatever the case, an all night meeting is not the basis for showing a
regular practice.
Marc
rasell
wrote:
A better translation is "murder".
Marc
rasell
>
> For what it's worth, I also don't see any heresy in vegetarianism
> (though there might be heresy in claiming that vegetarianism is
> commanded by the NT or Christian tradition or something).
>
The official SDA teaching encourages vegetarianism but is not required
for membership, however members should abstain from unclean meats such
as pork because they are the most unhealthful and dangerous meats, and
God never gave mankind permission to eat unclean meats. At the time of
Noah after the flood permission was given to eat clean meats. As a
people preparing to enter heaven, where everyone will be vegetarian,
its good to be vegetarian now provided one can get a good vegetarian
diet in your locality, and its suitable for you. i.e. for someone
gravely ill, a sudden change of diet could be damaging etc. We also
require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
Marc
Michael J Davis
Interesting.
How do you interpret...
Acts 10:13-16
Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure
or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything
impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and
immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. ?
But I do agree...
"As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
We may only know the power of love by the
pain caused when we are deprived of it.
<><
Michael J Davis
(Sorry - I was really replying to Ken, but your comments were helpful.)
>
>>>There is nothing in the Greek that suggests it is a Saturday evening
>>>but even if it was, it still wouldn't imply Sabbath observance, which
>>>is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
>>>
>>>I agree that it doesn't inicate Sunday observance either, as the
>>>disciples met most days and broke bread.
>>
>>It indicates they we meeting Sunday evening according to the
>>commentaries I can find.
>
>We simply don't know, other than the fact that the meeting started on
>the first day of the week. Luke was a Gentile, so I am guessing
>Sunday was the first day of the week for him, not Saturday evening.
AIUI, all days were counted from the sunset of the 'day before'
finishing with sundown. But I agree, that Jew *or* Gentile, the first
day would be 'Sunday'.
So the GNB is plain *wrong* Saturday evening would have been technically
Sunday, but this looks like Sunday, with the fellowship meal at the end
of the day, and then went on speaking to midnight Sunday.
Mike
Michael J Davis
>
>> Why don't you use a scholarly Bible - the Greek says first day of the
>> week The term 'sabbatoon' means 'week (i.e. the interval between
>> sabbaths) the word 'mia' means first; so it reads 'on the first day of
>> the week'
>
>No one disputes that that is what the actual words say. The objection
>is that the Greek words do not exactly map onto the English words, for
>the simple reason that for Jews (and Christians) the day begins at
>sunset, not sunrise nor midnight.
Yes, I wrote to John saying the same thing.
>I'm surprised that you, a Catholic, have a problem with the concept.
>After all, the Catholic church offers Saturday evening mass as an
>alternative to Sunday mass for this very reason!
I have no problem with the concept. I only have a problem as to why you
and the GNB call it Saturday. If it was after sunset it would be 'the
first day of the week' as per greek, and Sunday as per our (pagan)
nomenclature.
Mike
Michael J Davis
Sorry, my earlier answer was before I saw this post. I agree in general.
Hope all goes well for your absence, for whatever reason.
Mike
Michael J Davis
>
>>
>> Acts, as I've already pointed out. Which clearly showed how the early
>> church observed the (New) Lord's Day - that of resurrection.
>
>The first day of the week for Jews began on Saturday night, the
>meeting went on all night, showing it was not a regular type of
>meeting,
>then on Sunday morning Paul carried on his journey, showing
>he did not regard it as a rest day.
Ah, Paul was not constrained by Jewish law, and the concept of 'rest
day' was also not part of the 'Lord's day' because early Christians may
have had to travel for fellowship.
If the early Christians had celebrated the 'breaking of the bread' on
the sabbath, they would have called it by its scriptural name -
'Sabbat'. The only reference to 'the Lord's Day' in the New Testament[1]
is John 1:10; the other references are to the first day of the week.
[1] Of course there are lots of references to the 'Day of the
Lord' or the second coming, reflecting back to 'Dies irae, dies
illa' eg Zeph 1:15.
Note the Didache (last C1st/early C2nd) refers to coming together on the
'Lord's Day'.
>> Are you circumcised?
>
>Circumcision was given after the fall, the Sabbath before the fall as
>part of Creation.
Good answer! ;-)
I do have a response, but need to do some homework!
Mike
Michael J Davis
>
>> I quoted the above, not to show the church meeting, but to demonstrate
>> the numerous references to what happened on the first day of the week
>> and why, therefore, it was the practice to meet then.
>
>Has anyone - even Marc - expressed doubt as to the fact that Christ
>rose from the dead on Sunday?
The point being it is referred to as 'the Lord's Day' and not Sabbat,
when the church met. I was showing (well, trying to) that the references
to 'first day of the week' in the NT are consistently (couple of
inconsequential exceptions IIRC) either the resurrection or the day of
meeting. (When not in a synagogue.)
>>>> Acts 20:7
>
>>> Ah yes, a meeting on Saturday night celebrates the resurrection, which
>>> took place on Sunday morning. You have to understand that no one had
>>> wristwatches in the days when this happened, so you can't expect
>>> people to be aware of the fact that Saturday night is not Sunday
>>> morning. They got easily confused back then, what with all those
>>> succeeding apostles and things.
>
>> Don't be daft - the first day of the week is referred to as in the other
>> cases.
>
>Of course, but whereas the other cases referred to "early in the
>morning", Acts 20:7 refers to the evening.
True.
>
>> If you are referring to Acts 18:4 & 18:26, the above comment applies. If
>> not, would you care to tell me what you are talking about?
>
>Acts 18:7, which you unaccountably missed.
Easily accountable, actually! It doesn't refer to worshipping/breaking
of the bread - he left the synagogue on the Sabbat and visited Titus
Justus. Presumably this was significant to some readers of Acts, but we
have no further references to him.
Mike
Michael J Davis
>
>My first post came back as undeliverable, so second attempt:
>
>>
>> 1. Please quote the source of this document, I can't find it on-line.
>
>I think this has been covered now by previous posts.
Yes thanks, so has my reply.
>> >About 1400 AD Petrus de Ancharano asserted that “the pope can modify
>> >divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts in
>> >the place of God upon earth, with the fullest power of binding and
>> >loosing his sheep”
>>
>> 2. Please can you quote the original?
>
>The same source: Lucius Ferraris, “Papa,” art. 2, in his
>PromptaBibliotheca (“Handy Library”), Vol. 6 (Venetiis [Venice]:
>GasparStorti, 1772), p. 29. Latin.
Yes, I think I've dealt with this too.
>> >At the council of Trent Gaspare de Fosso archbishop of Reggio said
>> >that the authority of the church was illustrated by the fact that
>> >“(for He says He has come to fulfil the law, not to destroy it), but
>> >they have been changed by the authority of the church.”
>>
>> Don't understand that - what are you saying?
>
>The issue is about which has more authority, the Scriptures or
>theChurch. Can the Church change the 10 commandments?
The Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15) both
define and interpret the Scriptures. The scriptures are God's Word, and
of course, there is no conflict between what the Spirit says and what
Scripture says. Sometimes we may have to listen hard to understand.
If you are happy to use the Scriptures, then you have accepted that the
Holy Spirit is speaking through the Church.
>
>> You wouldn't be judging the RCC on the basis of what it celebrates,
>> would you?
>> Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink,
>> or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration
>> or a Sabbath day. Col 2:16 (NIV)
>
>There are a number of problems with associating Col. 2:16 with the
>weekly Sabbath:
>1. the definite article is not used in the Greek (a sabbath)
>2. the term shadow is only ever applied to ritual laws and Sabbaths,
>such as the Day of Atonement, or first and last day of Passover
>3. The Greek word for festival (heorte) is used for pilgrimage feasts
>to Jerusalem, hence does not include all ritual Sabbaths. The Hebrew
>equivalent (hag) is related to the Arabic (haj)
>4. the context suggests: angelology, asceticism, a sort of new age
>philosophy mingled with a bit of Judaism and Christianity. Its about
>people trying to be saved through mediating angels and punishing their
>bodies, it is not a call to abolish the eternal moral law of God.
>Rather it is saying salvation is only found in Jesus.
Yes, sorry, that was a bit naughty of me, posting that tongue in cheek;
I agree entirely with your point 4.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
See my story at...
http://www.trustsof.co.uk
<><
"God has privileged us in Christ Jesus to live above the ordinary human plane
of life. Those who want to be ordinary can do so, but as for me, I will not."
Smith Wigglesworth
<><
Mark Goodge
typed:
>
>The official SDA teaching encourages vegetarianism but is not required
>for membership, however members should abstain from unclean meats such
>as pork because they are the most unhealthful and dangerous meats, and
>God never gave mankind permission to eat unclean meats. At the time of
>Noah after the flood permission was given to eat clean meats. As a
>people preparing to enter heaven, where everyone will be vegetarian,
>its good to be vegetarian now provided one can get a good vegetarian
>diet in your locality, and its suitable for you. i.e. for someone
>gravely ill, a sudden change of diet could be damaging etc. We also
>require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
Tha's fine, I've never smoked an alcoholic drink.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Gareth McCaughan
Mike Davis wrote:
[Marc Rasell:]
>> The official SDA teaching encourages vegetarianism but is not required
>> for membership, however members should abstain from unclean meats such
>> as pork because they are the most unhealthful and dangerous meats, and
>> God never gave mankind permission to eat unclean meats. At the time of
>> Noah after the flood permission was given to eat clean meats. As a
>> people preparing to enter heaven, where everyone will be vegetarian,
>> its good to be vegetarian now provided one can get a good vegetarian
>> diet in your locality, and its suitable for you. i.e. for someone
>> gravely ill, a sudden change of diet could be damaging etc. We also
>> require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
[Mike:]
> How do you interpret...
>
> Acts 10:13-16
I have never understood why anyone thinks this passage indicates that
Christians aren't supposed to avoid eating "unclean" foods.[1] It was
a dream, it had an obvious metaphorical meaning, and that meaning didn't
have anything to do with food. It's as if people responded to Matthew 5:13
by sprinkling salt in their hair.
[1] I don't see any reason why gentile Christians *should*
avoid eating "unclean" foods either, but that isn't because
of Acts 10.
> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
> him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
That is a much better reason for Christians not to worry about eating
"unclean" foods.
Adam Funk
Flaming Sambuca, a foretaste of hades...
--
Some say the world will end in fire; some say in segfaults.
[XKCD 312]
Kendall Down
> I have no problem with the concept. I only have a problem as to why you
> and the GNB call it Saturday. If it was after sunset it would be 'the
> first day of the week' as per greek, and Sunday as per our (pagan)
> nomenclature.
GNB *and* NEB. I suppose I call it Saturday night because that seems the
most natural interpretation and also because it means that the entire
meeting took place on the first day of the week rather than just the
first few minutes of the meeting taking place on that day and the rest
of the meeting being on the second day of the week.
Kendall Down
> Tha's fine, I've never smoked an alcoholic drink.
Just shows that your lighter isn't man enough to set fire to it.
Kendall Down
> The point being it is referred to as 'the Lord's Day' and not Sabbat,
> when the church met.
Not in the Bible.
> Easily accountable, actually! It doesn't refer to worshipping/breaking
> of the bread - he left the synagogue on the Sabbat and visited Titus
> Justus. Presumably this was significant to some readers of Acts, but we
> have no further references to him.
No. Comparing with what happened in Ephesus, Paul didn't "visit" Titus
Justus, he hired his house/hall in which to continue teaching and preaching.
Robert Billing
> On 11 Oct, 23:02, Robert Billing <uncle...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The hyperspace communicator crackled into life and we heard rasell say:
>>
>> > I am a Seventh-day Adventist, don't see any heresy in vegetarianism,
>> > this is only condemned for those involved in Gnostic ideas, but for
>> > health reasons there is no problem, it was the original diet given to
>> > man, and also will be in heaven.
>>
>> You don't really believe in "Thou shalt not kill," then?
>
> A better translation is "murder".
Either way I don't see how vegetarians avoid killing plants.
rasell
>
> How do you interpret...
>
> Acts 10:13-16
> Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
> "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure
> or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything
> impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and
> immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. ?
The Jews would not eat with Gentiles because they thought of them as
unclean, this was a barrier to the spread of the gospel.
Clearly Peter still did not eat unclean foods after the cross, but the
vision had a spiritual meaning.
> But I do agree...
> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
> him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
>
It is generally thought that this refers to "food" offered to idols,
some thought it was sinful to eat such food, others reasoned that
idols are nothing so it does not matter.
Paul counseled the believers who had no problem not to offend those
who did.
The word used here is not about meats, or unclean food, it is any food
(offered to an idol).
Marc
rasell
>
> [1] I don't see any reason why gentile Christians *should*
> avoid eating "unclean" foods either, but that isn't because
> of Acts 10.
Its a health principle because God never gave mankind unclean foods to
eat. Meat was only permitted after the flood and there was a
distinction between clean and unclean meats.
As such Gentiles are not under the 613 laws of Moses, but that is not
to say there are not good principles in them: e.g. being kind to
animals, isolating people with contagious diseases etc.
And certainly the 10 commandments are eternal moral laws referred to
in the NT as being valid.
> > "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
> > unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
> > him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
This verse references food offered to idols and whether we should
consume it.
Marc
rasell
>
> Ah, Paul was not constrained by Jewish law, and the concept of 'rest
> day' was also not part of the 'Lord's day' because early Christians may
> have had to travel for fellowship.
Paul always endorsed the 10 commandments e.g. Rom. 13:9; 7:12; 3:31;
3:20; Eph. 6:1-2
> If the early Christians had celebrated the 'breaking of the bread' on
> the sabbath, they would have called it by its scriptural name -
> 'Sabbat'. The only reference to 'the Lord's Day' in the New Testament[1]
> is John 1:10; the other references are to the first day of the week.
Saturday evening was not Sabbath, it was the first day of the week.
> [1] Of course there are lots of references to the 'Day of the
> Lord' or the second coming, reflecting back to 'Dies irae, dies
> illa' eg Zeph 1:15.
The term Lord's day to a Jew of John's time would refer to the
Sabbath, it was only in later centuries that it was applied to Sunday.
In any case, Sunday was introduced in the 2nd century but not as a
replacement of the Sabbath. By the 5th century according to two
independent historians, most Christians were keeping both days.
The move to replace Sabbath with Sunday was gradual over centuries,
but the 6th century can be seen as a turning point.
The western church tried to get rid of the Sabbath by making people
fast on that day, but his was rejected by the eastern orthodox church
who said it was a day of celebration. It cause a huge scism for
centuries.
Marc
rasell
wrote:
>
> Either way I don't see how vegetarians avoid killing plants.
killing plants is not murder, otherwise we could not eat without
breaking the 10 commandments.
Gareth McCaughan
Marc Rasell wrote:
[Robert Billing:]
>> Either way I don't see how vegetarians avoid killing plants.
[Marc:]
> killing plants is not murder, otherwise we could not eat without
> breaking the 10 commandments.
Of course you could: you could eat only what you could take without
killing. Fruit, for instance (they're even *intended* to be eaten
by animals, in some sense). Eggs (though you might want to avoid
fertilized ones). Milk. Probably some animals could survive after
losing, say, a leg, so you could have a bit of meat. (Some lizards
can actually regenerate limbs, but I suspect their flesh isn't
very palatable.) Mushrooms. If goose livers regenerate like human
livers, you could even (at much greater expense than now) have
foie gras without killing any geese. Nuts.
Gareth McCaughan
"rasell" wrote:
> Its a health principle because God never gave mankind unclean foods
> to eat.
The first part of that sentence doesn't follow from the second.
Perhaps God didn't give mankind unclean foods to eat because he
likes making arbitrary rules, or because it's good for people
to have such rules to follow. Perhaps God foresaw that it would
just happen to work out that if he didn't give such a rule then
some awful thing would have happened -- e.g., a terrible dictator
would have arisen and massacred millions of his chosen people
while spreading war across the earth. (Oh, oops, that one actually
did happen. Maybe he should have worded the prohibition slightly
differently or something.)
The second part of the sentence doesn't follow from what I take
to be the evidence you have in mind, namely the Bible: see below.
And it doesn't follow, even if both halves of the sentence are
granted, that it's a health principle that's relevant today;
a lot has changed since Old Testament times, or even since
New Testament times, and it's very far from clear that "unclean
foods" pose any health threat to speak of in modern affluent
industrialized nations like this one. (Of course I don't mean
that no one ever gets sick after eating pork or shellfish; I
mean that they get sick about equally often after eating other
things, and that it's very rare for such sickness to be dangerous.)
> Meat was only permitted after the flood and there was a
> distinction between clean and unclean meats.
Here is what Genesis 9 actually says that God told Noah
about what to eat after the flood. The directly-relevant
bit I've capitalized; the rest is there for context and
so that everyone can see I haven't left out any relevant
qualifications.
| And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be
| fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and
| the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and
| upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the
| ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are
| delivered. EVERY MOVING THING THAT LIVES SHALL BE FOOD FOR YOU;
| AND AS I GAVE YOU THE GREEN PLANTS, I GIVE YOU EVERYTHING. ONLY
| YOU SHALL NOT EAT FLESH WITH ITS LIFE, THAT IS, ITS BLOOD. For
| your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast
| I will require it and of man; of every man's brother I will require
| the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall
| his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. And you,
| be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth
| and multiply in it."
There is nothing whatever there to restrict which moving things
that live are acceptable food for Noah, provided only that he can
avoid eating the blood. The immediately preceding material (about
how *every* beast, bird, creepy-crawly, and fish will fear mankind)
is further evidence that there's no such restriction as you claim.
>>> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
>>> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
>>> him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
>
> This verse references food offered to idols and whether we should
> consume it.
It also says that Paul is fully convinced that no food is unclean in
itself. He doesn't say, e.g., "I am fully convinced that no food is
unclean in itself provided it's OK according to the law of Moses".
The fact that he says it in the context of a discussion of idols
doesn't change that.
rasell
The fact there was a distinction between clean and unclean implies
that when meat was given for food it was only the clean meats even
though this is not specifically stated.
Some aspects of religion go right back to Adam and Eve. We find
references to tithing, animal sacrifices, ritual washings, and the
principles of the 10 commandments before Moses.
To say Paul is saying all food is OK to eat is taking Romans 14
outside of its context. The readers understood what Paul was referring
to.
Marc
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 13 Oct, 08:16, Robert Billing <uncle...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>
Since the prohibition on murder was given in the ten commandments, and yet
the Israelites were not merely permitted but *commanded* to eat meat, it's
clear that God doesn't consider killing animals to be murder either.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:gk9XiSEM...@trustsof.co.uk.invalid...
> rasell <marca...@hotmail.co.uk> was inspired to say
>>On 11 Oct, 20:06, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, I also don't see any heresy in vegetarianism
>>> (though there might be heresy in claiming that vegetarianism is
>>> commanded by the NT or Christian tradition or something).
>>>
>>
>>The official SDA teaching encourages vegetarianism but is not required
>>for membership, however members should abstain from unclean meats such
>>as pork because they are the most unhealthful and dangerous meats,
Well I have been eating it since the early 1950's nearly 60 years and have
never suffered from any ill-effects from eating it.
Always remembering... "4 Since everything God created is good, we should not
reject any of it but receive it with thanks.5 For we know it is made
acceptable by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5 (NLT)
>> and
>>God never gave mankind permission to eat unclean meats. At the time of
>>Noah after the flood permission was given to eat clean meats. As a
>>people preparing to enter heaven, where everyone will be vegetarian,
Where does the NT teach that all Christ's brethren and sisters will be
vegetarians on becoming the ruling saints of the most high God?
You also might find the following very interesting reading. "13 You say,
"Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food." This is true,
though someday God will do away with both of them." 1 Cor 6:13 (NLT)
>>its good to be vegetarian now provided one can get a good vegetarian
>>diet in your locality, and its suitable for you. i.e. for someone
>>gravely ill, a sudden change of diet could be damaging etc. We also
>>require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
>
> Interesting.
>
> How do you interpret...
>
> Acts 10:13-16
> Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
> "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure
> or unclean." The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything
> impure that God has made clean." This happened three times, and
> immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. ?
>
> But I do agree...
> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
> him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
Also notice what inspired Paul has to teach about those who insist on
becoming a vegetarian...."2 For one believeth that he may eat all things:
another, who is weak, eateth herbs." Romans 14:2 (KJV)
Also see...
"3 They will say it is wrong to be married and wrong to eat certain foods.
But God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who
know the truth.4 Since everything God created is good, we should not reject
any of it but receive it with thanks.5 For we know it is made acceptable by
the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5 (NLT)
HTH.
Jeff...
"Dear brothers pattern your life after mine [Paul] and notice who else lives
up to my example. For I have told you often before, and I say it now again
with tears in my eyes, there are many who walk along the Christian road who
are really enemies of the cross of Christ. Their future is eternal
loss....they are proud of what they should ashamed of."
Philippians 3:17-19 (TLB)
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> and
> typed:
So how do you break bread and drink wine as he has commanded his brethren.
Jeff...
"I've sent Timothy to you to help you remember my Christian way of
life as I teach it everywhere in every church."
1 Cor 4:17 (GW)
Gareth McCaughan
"rasell" wrote:
> On 13 Oct, 11:18, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
(But after that, you didn't quote anything I'd written. That's
fine, but in that situation please remove the citation too, lest
someone get confused about who wrote what.)
> The fact there was a distinction between clean and unclean implies
> that when meat was given for food it was only the clean meats even
> though this is not specifically stated.
It implies no such thing.
> Some aspects of religion go right back to Adam and Eve. We find
> references to tithing, animal sacrifices, ritual washings, and the
> principles of the 10 commandments before Moses.
But nothing whatever about clean versus unclean foods. So what's
the relevance of Adam and Eve here?
> To say Paul is saying all food is OK to eat is taking Romans 14
> outside of its context. The readers understood what Paul was referring
> to.
I repeat: your reading of the passage seems grossly unnatural to me,
and I don't see any reason to think that Paul's readers would have
understood it the way you say they would.
Michael J Davis
>
>Mike Davis wrote:
>
>[Marc Rasell:]
>>> The official SDA teaching encourages vegetarianism but is not required
>>> for membership, however members should abstain from unclean meats such
>>> as pork because they are the most unhealthful and dangerous meats, and
>>> God never gave mankind permission to eat unclean meats. At the time of
>>> Noah after the flood permission was given to eat clean meats. As a
>>> people preparing to enter heaven, where everyone will be vegetarian,
>>> its good to be vegetarian now provided one can get a good vegetarian
>>> diet in your locality, and its suitable for you. i.e. for someone
>>> gravely ill, a sudden change of diet could be damaging etc. We also
>>> require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
>
>[Mike:]
>> How do you interpret...
>>
>> Acts 10:13-16
>
>I have never understood why anyone thinks this passage indicates that
>Christians aren't supposed to avoid eating "unclean" foods.[1] It was
>a dream, it had an obvious metaphorical meaning, and that meaning didn't
>have anything to do with food. It's as if people responded to Matthew 5:13
>by sprinkling salt in their hair.
Yes, I partly agree. It would be an odd vision, though, were it to
suggest that it's OK to do something 'sinful' as metaphorical vision to
inspire someone to do what is good/necessary/mandatory.
That's partly whyI chose to point it out.
>
> [1] I don't see any reason why gentile Christians *should*
> avoid eating "unclean" foods either, but that isn't because
> of Acts 10.
Agreed.
>
>> "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is
>> unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
>> him it is unclean." Rom 14:14
>
>That is a much better reason for Christians not to worry about eating
>"unclean" foods.
Indeed, I chose the two together.
Mike
Michael J Davis
I've responded to this as a comment on Gareth's reply to you.
Mike
Michael J Davis
>
>> On 13 Oct, 11:18, Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>(But after that, you didn't quote anything I'd written. That's
>fine, but in that situation please remove the citation too, lest
>someone get confused about who wrote what.)
>
>> The fact there was a distinction between clean and unclean implies
>> that when meat was given for food it was only the clean meats even
>> though this is not specifically stated.
>
>It implies no such thing.
>
>> Some aspects of religion go right back to Adam and Eve. We find
>> references to tithing, animal sacrifices, ritual washings, and the
>> principles of the 10 commandments before Moses.
>
>But nothing whatever about clean versus unclean foods. So what's
>the relevance of Adam and Eve here?
More out of curiosity than anything, I note that Marc ignores Gen 9:3-4,
[God said] "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just
as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must
not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it."
Note just the one restriction.
>> To say Paul is saying all food is OK to eat is taking Romans 14
>> outside of its context. The readers understood what Paul was referring
>> to.
Paul writing to the Romans appears to be *after* the Council of
Jerusalem, where it was agreed that...
"It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for
the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them,
telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
[Acts 15:19-20]
Mike
rasell
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Well I have been eating it since the early 1950's nearly 60 years and have
> never suffered from any ill-effects from eating it.
> Always remembering... "4 Since everything God created is good, we should not
> reject any of it but receive it with thanks.5 For we know it is made
> acceptable by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5 (NLT)
don't forget BSE.
please consider the context of 1 Tim. 4 of gnostic teachings.
> Where does the NT teach that all Christ's brethren and sisters will be
> vegetarians on becoming the ruling saints of the most high God?
Do you think people will eat meat in heaven?
> You also might find the following very interesting reading. "13 You say,
> "Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food." This is true,
> though someday God will do away with both of them." 1 Cor 6:13 (NLT)
>
In Isaiah it says in the new earth they will plant vineyards and eat
of them.
Jesus after his resurrection ate food to show the disciples he was
real.
> Also notice what inspired Paul has to teach about those who insist on
> becoming a vegetarian...."2 For one believeth that he may eat all things:
> another, who is weak, eateth herbs." Romans 14:2 (KJV)
The context is food offered to idols.
> "Dear brothers pattern your life after mine [Paul] and notice who else lives
> up to my example. For I have told you often before, and I say it now again
> with tears in my eyes, there are many who walk along the Christian road who
> are really enemies of the cross of Christ. Their future is eternal
> loss....they are proud of what they should ashamed of."
> Philippians 3:17-19 (TLB)- Hide quoted text -
>
The context is people that put food above Christ, making their belly
their god.
Marc
rasell
<broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:12:25 -0700 (PDT), rasell put finger to keyboard
> > and
> > typed:
>
> >We also require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
>
> So how do you break bread and drink wine as he has commanded his brethren
>
> "I've sent Timothy to you to help you remember my Christian way of
> life as I teach it everywhere in every church."
> 1 Cor 4:17 (GW)
We use non-alcholic wine, grape juice for communion.
In the NT, the word for wine is applied to fermented as well as
unfermented wine.
Marc
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On 12 Oct, 19:33, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
><broadband1234[remove]@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:12:25 -0700 (PDT), rasell put finger to keyboard
>> > and
>> > typed:
>>
>> �>We also require members not to smoke or consume alcoholic drinks.
>>
>> So how do you break bread and drink wine as he has commanded his brethren
>>
>> Jeff...
>> "I've sent Timothy to you to help you remember my Christian way of
>> life as I teach it everywhere in every church."
>> 1 Cor 4:17 (GW)
>
>We use non-alcholic wine, grape juice for communion.
>In the NT, the word for wine is applied to fermented as well as
>unfermented wine.
The wine that Jesus drank (and, for that matter, created) at the wedding in
Cana was definitely alcoholic.
Gareth McCaughan
Mike Davis wrote:
>>> Acts 10:13-16
>>
>> I have never understood why anyone thinks this passage indicates that
>> Christians aren't supposed to avoid eating "unclean" foods.[1]
..
> Yes, I partly agree. It would be an odd vision, though, were it to
> suggest that it's OK to do something 'sinful' as metaphorical vision
> to inspire someone to do what is good/necessary/mandatory.
Not all that odd. Surely the point is meant to be something like
"I made the rules and I get to break them if I want to, so don't
ignore my instructions just because they seem to disagree with
the rules".
Gareth McCaughan
Mike Davis wrote:
[Marc Rasell:]
>>> Some aspects of religion go right back to Adam and Eve. We find
>>> references to tithing, animal sacrifices, ritual washings, and the
>>> principles of the 10 commandments before Moses.
[me:]
>> But nothing whatever about clean versus unclean foods. So what's
>> the relevance of Adam and Eve here?
[Mike:]
> More out of curiosity than anything, I note that Marc ignores Gen 9:3-4,
We've been discussing that very passage elsewhere in the thread.
Marc insists that "everything that lives and moves" must mean
"everything that lives and moves and is classified as clean".
Kendall Down
> The wine that Jesus drank (and, for that matter, created) at the wedding in
> Cana was definitely alcoholic.
Can you prove that? (Mind you, I tend to agree with the conclusion, I'm
just not so sure about the argument.)
Alwyn
The word is _οἶνος_. I'm aware that it was also used in the ancient
world for a kind of beer, but I've never heard of its being applied to
anything other than an alcoholic beverage. When people accused Jesus of
being a glutton and a wine-bibber, do you think they meant he drank too
much unfermented grape juice?
At the wedding in Cana, the master of the feast congratulates the
bridegroom on breaking with the custom of serving the best wine first;
the reason for this of course is that the more you drink, the less
discriminating your palate becomes, so when you are tipsy, you don't
mind if what you drink is a bit rough. The master of the feast was
perfectly sober and recognised a good wine when he tasted one; needless
to say, if it contained no alcohol, it would lack vinosity - it would in
other words not taste like wine.
Alwyn
rasell
wrote:
> >We use non-alcholic wine, grape juice for communion.
> >In the NT, the word for wine is applied to fermented as well as
> >unfermented wine.
>
> The wine that Jesus drank (and, for that matter, created) at the wedding in
> Cana was definitely alcoholic.
>
You assert so, but give no evidence.
Marc
Alwyn
What about the evidence I gave?
Can you also show where in the New Testament the word _οἶνος_ is used to
indicate something other than what we know as wine? (There is no such
thing as non-alcholic wine.)
Alwyn
Michael J Davis
Oh, missed that imputation. Thanks.
--
Michael J Davis
<><
"I shall spend my days in heaven doing good on earth" St Therese
<><
Kendall Down
> The word is _οἶνος_. I'm aware that it was also used in the ancient
> world for a kind of beer, but I've never heard of its being applied to
> anything other than an alcoholic beverage.
Yes, I know what the word is, but I have heard the contrary to what you
have heard and I wondered if you could prove your assertion.
> When people accused Jesus of
> being a glutton and a wine-bibber, do you think they meant he drank too
> much unfermented grape juice?
As I said, I agree with your conclusion.
rasell
>
> Can you also show where in the New Testament the word _οἶνος_ is used to
> indicate something other than what we know as wine? (There is no such
> thing as non-alcholic wine.)
>
> Alwyn
The Dictionary of Biblical Languages defines "oinos" as:
1. wine, naturally fermented juice of grapes (Jn 2:3; Eph 5:18; 1Ti
3:8; Tit 2:3)
2. (oinos neos), new wine, newly pressed juice of grape, possibly just
beginning the fermentation process (Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:37, 38+)
3. myrrhed wine (Mk 15:23+)
Marc
Alwyn
> On 15 Oct, 10:43, Alwyn<al...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Can you also show where in the New Testament the word _οἶνος_ is used to
>> indicate something other than what we know as wine? (There is no such
>> thing as non-alcholic wine.)
>
> 1. wine, naturally fermented juice of grapes (Jn 2:3; Eph 5:18; 1Ti
> 3:8; Tit 2:3)
> 2. (oinos neos), new wine, newly pressed juice of grape, possibly just
> beginning the fermentation process (Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:37, 38+)
New wine, yes; the fermentation process starts the moment the grapes are
pressed. Some time later it is put into wineskins or leather bottles;
these need to be reconditioned from time to time, otherwise they will
break owing to the gas produced by fermentation of new wine into old.
Must or unfermented grape juice is referred to in Ancient Greek as
_τρύξ_, and this was no doubt given to children to drink. It would need
to be boiled to prevent the yeast it contained turning the sugars it
contained into alcohol and vinegar.
Jesus says:
"And no one after drinking old wine, right away asks for the new, for he
says, the old is better." (Luke 5:39)
showing, I think, that people in Jesus' day preferred the more mature
and alcoholic product, just as they do today.
Alwyn
Alwyn
> On 15/10/2010 09:44, Alwyn wrote:
>
>> The word is _οἶνος_. I'm aware that it was also used in the ancient
>> world for a kind of beer, but I've never heard of its being applied to
>> anything other than an alcoholic beverage.
>
> Yes, I know what the word is, but I have heard the contrary to what you
> have heard and I wondered if you could prove your assertion.
Well, _οἶνος νέος_, 'new wine', had a lower alcohol content due to its
being in the initial phases of fermentation, but since fermentation
starts as soon as the grapes are pressed (or even earlier if the grapes
are not pressed while fresh) it cannot be called alcohol-free. It is
wine in the making, so to speak.
The point about the wine in the wedding at Cana was proved in the part
you snipped.
Alwyn
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
news:2b5aa069-b7ca-4c40...@x23g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>> Well I have been eating it since the early 1950's nearly 60 years and
>> have
>> never suffered from any ill-effects from eating it.
>> Always remembering... "4 Since everything God created is good, we should
>> not
>> reject any of it but receive it with thanks.5 For we know it is made
>> acceptable by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5 (NLT)
>don't forget BSE.
I didn't, and I still have been eating pork for about 60 years [especially
yummy bacon] without any noticeable harmful effects.
In fact I had a couple of chops done in the oven only the other evening with
a plethora of vegetables washed down with a couple of glasses of white
[1]wine.
[1] "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service
of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth; 15 And wine that
maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread
which strengtheneth man's heart." Psalms 104:14-15 (KJV)
And again..."The Vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth
God and man?"
Judges 9:13 (KJV)
For as we both know.....
"God created those foods to be eaten with thanks by faithful people who
know the truth.4 Since everything God created is good, we should not reject
any of it but receive it with thanks.5 For we know it is made acceptable by
the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5 (NLT)
Did you see that, Marc?
As I noticed for some unknown reason you snipped this passage out last time.
Jesus also ate meat....
"Killing the Passover lamb was customary on the first day of the Festival of
Unleavened Bread. The disciples asked Jesus, "Where do you want us to
prepare the Passover meal for you?" Mark 14:12 (GW)
...and drank wine with his meals, did you know that?
"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, 'He has a demon';
19 and the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Lo, a glutton
and a wine-drinker."
Matt 11:18-19 (MontgomeryNT)
>> Where does the NT teach that all Christ's brethren and sisters will be
>> vegetarians on becoming the ruling saints of the most high God?
>Do you think people will eat meat in heaven?
Christ's saints will live and reign on the earth.
But before that at the marriage supper....."Blessed are those servants, whom
the lord when he cometh shall find
watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them
to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them." Luke 12:37 (KJV)
>> You also might find the following very interesting reading. "13 You say,
>> "Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food." This is true,
>> though someday God will do away with both of them." 1 Cor 6:13 (NLT)
>In Isaiah it says in the new earth they will plant vineyards and eat
>of them.
Yes! the mortals being reigned over will do just that in Christ's coming
kingdom, when it is ruled over by the saints.
> Jesus after his resurrection ate food to show the disciples he was
>real.
Indeed!
>> Also notice what inspired Paul has to teach about those who insist on
>> becoming a vegetarian...."2 For one believeth that he may eat all things:
>> another, who is weak, eateth herbs." Romans 14:2 (KJV)
>The context is food offered to idols.
Not in this verse....it applies to eating ALL edible foods.
As elsewhere we read..."Everything God created is good, we should not reject
any of it but receive it with thanks. 5 For we know it is made acceptable by
the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim 4:3-5
And so Paul became 'persuaded' by Christ that all meats are clean and able
to be eaten.
"14 The Lord Jesus has given me the knowledge and conviction that no food is
unacceptable in and of itself."
Romans 14:14 (GW)
See, Marc, "It is MADE acceptable BY the Word of God" and the giving of
thanks for it.
So now, NO items of food are "Unclean" or forbidden for Christians or "by
faithful people who
know the truth."
Jeff...
Notice how Paul sincerely instructs all the faithful....."These things teach
and
exhort. 3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words,
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about
questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil
surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of
the truth." 1 Tim 6:2-5 (KJV)