In another post, bestselling author Anne Rice told you her story – how, through historical research, she became convinced the facts support a real Jesus who rose from the dead. She explains how and why she left atheism to embrace hope.
Then, in 2010, she left the church. She said:
“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian … It’s simply impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
“My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn’t understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me. But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become.”
Many have asked my thoughts about Anne Rice’s departure from the Catholic Church. Let me tell you my own story of struggling with quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious church people.
When I was 12, my mom went “bipolar.” Manic depressive with mild schizophrenia.
Except that for a year and a half, nobody knew that’s what was wrong with her. We just knew she was impossible to live with.
The fights, the arguments and contention would start as soon as I got home from school every day and stretch past bedtime.
Our entire family was bedlam for a year and a half.
Mom would swing from being your best friend to your worst enemy at the slightest provocation. I’d come home from school and find she’d tossed boxes of my stuff in the garbage. She’d say embarrassing things to my friends.
She insisted dad wasn’t really her husband. She said he was a man who looked just like Bob and she was sentenced to live with him until the ‘real’ Bob came back. When he came home from work she would hurl accusations at him. My brother and sister and I would complain bitterly to him about how she was treating us.
It was almost impossible to not get sucked into some kind of conflict every day. Home was the most dangerous place a kid could be.
My dad was taking her to doctors and counselors but nobody seemed to be able to arrive at any conclusion. Meanwhile, people watched us with a judgmental eye.
My dad was an associate pastor at a very large church in Nebraska, 2000+ members. Dad started getting heat from his boss, the senior pastor, Mr. G, who didn’t like the fact that one of the pastors’ wives was “out of line.”
Mr. G quoted the scripture that says a pastor should be in control of his family and told dad if he didn’t straighten out mom’s problem, he might have to leave.
Dad pursued answers and eventually got mom to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist diagnosed her with a chemical imbalance and bipolar disorder.
That trip to the psychiatrist was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Psychiatrists and psychologists, in Mr. G’s opinion, were the new high priests of a secular order that would dismiss all human ills as curable illnesses. Psychiatrists didn’t have the courage to call evil by its real names – SIN and DISOBEDIENCE. They existed to give people like my mom an alibi. Mr. G declared Mom insubordinate and rebellious.
Literally on the same day the diagnosis came back, Mr. G and Mr. J, the pastors of our church, visited our house to deliver the news. We all sat in the living room as they announced, “We’ve asked your father to resign from his responsibilities. He’s no longer qualified to be a pastor.”
I listened without much comment. I was 13. My older sister, however, was livid. At 18 she’d formed definite opinions about what had transpired. She started sobbing and retorted angrily to Mr. J: “If people knew what YOUR daughter does when she’s out at night, they’d be forcing you to resign too.”
Mr. J said, “We’re not here to talk about me or my family today, Robin. We’re here to talk about you.”
Earlier that day, dad had been brought before the Board of Elders to hear their final verdict. One by one, they agreed with Mr. G: “Bob, you’re not in control of your family. We’re sorry, you have to step down.” Mr. G demoted dad and announced to 2,000 people the following Sunday that dad had “resigned” so he could “attend to problems with Betty and the family.”
The next months were painful indeed. Few knew the real story. Some gathered around us. Most only knew something disgraceful had happened though and kept their distance. We felt like pariahs.
Dad couldn’t hang with his same friends anymore. He wasn’t invited to lunch at work. They shut him out of staff meetings. They hadn’t cut his pay, but he did lose a tax deduction. Less money to go around.
A couple months later I got into a fist fight at school. Came home with two black eyes. Bad report cards and complaints from teachers. All this added to the mounting case against dad.
He would come home from work every night and sit on the couch and sob. Mom told him it was all his fault for being such a cruel tyrant.
Dad followed through with the psychiatrist’s advice to get her on a prescription drug. Literally within a few days, mom transformed from defiant and combative to quiet and cooperative. The bizarre behavior stopped completely. Not only that, she went from being angry and defensive to feeling deep remorse about her erratic behavior.
Soon it became clear that Mr. G torpedoed dad simply because mom had a medical problem – a chemical imbalance – and that mom’s behavior wasn’t “sin” or “rebellion.” It was a well-understood mental illness. She couldn’t help herself.
Dad was hurt and humiliated and felt abandoned. He desperately wanted to bail. A lot of people told him he should quit his job, especially our relatives who understood the scope of the situation.
Dad thought about pulling up stakes, moving elsewhere. He decided to stick it out. To argue his case and vindicate himself.
Few men had the balls to stand up to Mr. G, but dad did. As mom’s condition improved, he said, “Mr. G, you made a wrong judgment and you need to apologize to my wife.”
Furthermore dad made Mr. G write her a letter of reconciliation, because by this time mom had become terrified of Mr. G. He had, after all, the ability to singlehandedly destroy dad’s career.
Nine months after dad had been demoted, he was reinstated.
Two weeks later dad was diagnosed with cancer.
Had dad cut and run, he would’ve been in a newcomer in some new environment, maybe even starting over in a brand new city, surrounded by strangers.
But since he’d stuck it out and vindicated himself, we were surrounded by a faith community that lent us help with dinners and financial support and prayers and encouragement.
Dad had major surgery. He was cancer free for a year and a half, then it came back. Treatments were unsuccessful, and as it became clear that he wasn’t going to make it, Mr. G secretly mailed a letter to everyone else at church. He explained how this summer might be Bob’s last and it would be really nice to raise some money, so Bob can take a trip to the West Coast.
$10,000 came in. In 1986 that was enough to not only take dad to California, a place he’d always longed to visit, but it was enough to get all of us to Alaska and Hawaii too. Dad experienced a 5 week “last hurrah” with his wife and kids that July.
That October, he died. I was 17.
I can’t tell you how many things I’ve wanted to quit, and didn’t, because dad wouldn’t throw in the towel and walk away from a bunch of quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous people.
And say what you want about ’em, when you’re in the oncology ward with terminal cancer, those are the same people that will probably be with you as you pass from here to the other side.
They will still have their faults and you will have yours, but… blood is thicker than water.
A faith community can become just as close and even closer than your biological family. It’s why they can hurt you so easily.
But there’s no such thing as a real community, or even a real relationship, that isn’t vulnerable. Painfully so sometimes. During our special vacation to California, dad told me that getting rejected and blamed for a mess he had no control of had been worse than dying of cancer was now.
Peter asked Jesus, how many times should I forgive my brother? Seven times?
Jesus said, “Seventy times seven. That’s how many times you should forgive.”
What do you forgive people for, anyway??
For being quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous. For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. Matthew 6:14-15.
After the potluck dinners have ended and people start throwing chairs at each other, it’s so easy to pull the plug and run. So many marriages don’t work out, it’s so easy to just live with someone and see how things turn out.
It IS easier.
It’s easier at first.
But when a series of relationships fail, they rip your heart to shreds just as much whether you were married or not. It just seemed like not ‘committing’ yourself lessened the risk. If your “common law wife” leaves you after 10 years, how is that any less painful than if your legally married wife leaves you? Just because it’s ‘unofficial’ doesn’t make it less perilous.
I’ve had to make multiple passes of forgiveness about Mr. G. A few years later when more fiascoes erupted, I had to let go again.
A few years after that, it occurred to me that my dad might not have even gotten cancer in the first place had he not endured two years in such a toxic, unsupportive, humiliating environment. That’s speculation, but still I had even more forgiveness I had to do.
A year ago I realized I needed to confront yet another layer of unforgiveness within myself. I had made a conscious choice to let go of the past, when I suddenly felt God saying to me, “The Father’s Heart is going to be poured out over Mr. G and his church.”
The day you forgive anther person is the day new blessings get released into their life. The day you forgive another person is the day you stop being a victim of whatever they did to you.
Dear Anne Rice, I greatly esteem your writing and your scholarship. I commend you for your adroit case for the historical Jesus. I appeal to you as a brother and member of the imperfect body of Christ, that to exit and publicly denounce them is to embrace quarreling… hostility… and public disputes.
From an individual view it’s all justified. But isolation makes islands of all of us. When we who were mistreated gather together in opposition to those who did us wrong, we inevitably become like those whom we judge.
A few years ago I visited an old college buddy in Washington DC. He was an exquisitely smart, seminary educated man who’d been a pastor in a Protestant evangelical church. He’d recently converted from Protestant to Eastern Orthodox.
Eastern Orthodox??? Most Americans don’t even know what that is.
I was dying to hear his explanation. “I don’t know what Peter’s going to tell me, but it’s sure gonna be interesting.”
I wasn’t disappointed. We sat up late three nights in a row exploring his decision. I don’t have time for the whole story now, but one of the points he made was this: “Protestants have ‘splitting off’ in their very DNA. As soon as they disagree, they leave First Baptist Church to go start Second Baptist Church. Then some of those people split off and form Third Baptist Church and on and on it goes.
“Catholics and Orthodox people don’t automatically do that. They prize unity. I have a bishop over me and he’s like a father to me and my wife. We live in community and in covenant together. He’s responsible to look out for us and we choose to be in a trusting mutual relationship.”
Whether you’re Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox… or if you’re on the outside looking in… I want to encourage you: living the nomad life is less demanding in the short term but lonelier in the long term.
As you make forgiveness a way of life, when you choose to live in community, you earn a kind of compound interest of grace. Months or years do not always reveal the fruit of that. It grows evident over decades. Community is the only place where you truly learn to forgive and learn to love.
The only way we exorcise our demons – both figuratively and literally – is in committed relationships with other people. Those around us are mirrors. They show us our faults, and we theirs. As we bathe those faults in mercy and forgiveness we become the people we aspire to be.
Perry Marshall
–> Subscribe to the “Seven Great Lies of Organized Religion” email series
How many of you “experts” here actually have a real, living relationship with the Messiah? Or how many of you have been hood-winked by Christendom? I believe the majority fall under the second question.
I agree Kalev, that is the heart of the whole issue, but many have not had that relationship.
I for one have and more than once. It was entirely His choice.
Kaleu You have identified in my opinion one of the greatest challenges to a believer. We have been taught to compete against one another…sports, religious doctrines, livelyhood, school etc. All from the tree of knowledge. How about the other tree? Is it accessible? Or is it only by the faith of God and not by man’s mental Prowess. To be carnal minded is death, spiritual mindedness is life and peace. One could have all of the wisdom of the world but that and $5.00 most likely wouldn’t buy a good hamburger, on the other hand maybe it would.
He that has an ear let him hear what the Spirit say’s to the churches.
What is the difference between …. the Church’s statement that “With the assistance of”) Jesus CHRIIST is the ONLY way; and that…. of the Muslims, that Mohamed is the LAST prophet, and Jesus being one of such prior Prophet??
Dear Pramod
1. There is nothing in scripture that says “with the assistance of”.
2. Jesus: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me” is not a church statement, it is scripture.
3. If prophets lie they are not prophets.
4. There are prophets alive today so why do you call Mohamed the last prophet? I think we have a different understanding on the meaning of prophet.
5. Jesus was MORE than a prophet. Jesus was a conqueror. He conquered death. As far as I know Mohamed didn’t.
Chris
OMG I am sooo confused. Lifelong issue w/me. So many contradictions.
Hi Terry
You don’t tell us what the confusion is so its difficult to answer you.
Jesus said “If you are not for me, you are against me.” (Matt 12:30, Luke 11:23). That’s pretty straightforward.
Chris
hi pramod
in Quran Allah says in [39:67] They can never fathom the greatness of GOD. The whole earth is within His fist on the Day of Resurrection. In fact, the universes are folded within His right hand. Be He glorified; He is much too high above needing any partners.
just imagine if earth is in God’s fist what is a man in thy hand.nearly equal to tiny particle of dust.
when they say that God who is so great and big have a son equal to the particle of dust its very humorous thing.you can laugh now.
it does not matter which prophet is last or great. postmen should not be worshiped.they came to deliver the message like mail servers on the internet. they will get their labour from higher authority aka “God ” .the question is how we react from that message .do we change for good or worse.if you are a hindu please read vedas they have good knowledge .and chris please read Gospel of Jesus if you have.gospel of his disciples are confusing like the Hadith that Muslims follow. tradition and culture divide the whole humanity.your heart is a good judge to know right or wrong.
note : veda is soohf-e-oola in Quran,gospel of Jesus is injeel in Quran and muslims follow Quran which was revealed to prophet Muhammad who is the last prophet according to Quran.but still Muhammad is a prophet only .
and according to Quran Muslim a believer in Arabic and kaafir means atheist like Astik/bhakt
and naastik in Hindi.
imagine theres a match is played between india and pakistan in lal bahadur stadium in hyderabad everybody have to comes to the same stadium no matter from where they
come.we may chose follow different religions or books but God is one to whom we all will return.
Well let’s put up a Protestant quote now.
“It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian;… From this time they almost totally ceased;… The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens….This was the real cause why the extraordinary fits of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.” – John Wesley
Wow, what a bigoted remark, condemning nearly 2 millennia of Christians, many which died for their faiths, in one fell sweep! This completely negates the powerful force of the Spirit in such amazing people as Saint Francis of Assisi, or St. John of the Cross, or St. Theresa of Avila, or more recently, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, or, one of my favorites, St. Damien of Molokai, who dedicated his life to service of a leper colony in Hawaii, ultimately contracting the disease and dying from it. This is, of course, not to mention the countless scores of dedicated religious and lay missionaries that have sacrificed their lives travelling the world helping others and spreading the Good News! The statement is quite laughable, given that the only reason Mr. John Wesley became a prominent English Protestant theologian (and not a some Celtic polytheist) is because, long before Martin Luther or the Guttenberg press arrived on the scene, those so-called nearly Heathen Christians -namely the early Catholics- inspired by the Holy Spirit, copied, preserved and spread the Word of God throughout Europe for over 1,000 years! Yes, Mr. Wesley was Christian, because his forefathers were part of those nearly-Heathen Catholics… :-D
What was the phrase you used before, Kalev? Ah, yes, “Presumptuous opinion, without any credible proof.” :-)
Wasn’t an opinion, just put up a quote by one of the Protestant fathers’. I do see his point, however, but that doesn’t mean I fully agree with his point.
It was an opinion, John Wesley’s -which you promote by repeating. And people don’t usually promote what they dislike, now do they? I find it comical how people will post something, then try distance themselves from it by saying it’s not their opinion, rather some quote they decided to put up, with the ambigous caveat that they don’t “fully” agree with it (though you “see his point”). So I’m supposed to assume you only “partially” (as opposed to “fully”) agree with the assertion that “…Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens… fits of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again”” Yes, because a partial agreement to such heresy makes it OK…
In response to Cristian Tampe: When you accuse Calev Efrayim of having made a “bigoted remark” for having quoted john Wesly you are being less than charitable. While your response on the whole was valid, we won’t be winning Calev to our cause by calling him a bigot. We may as well call Wesley a bigot.
Dale, you misread me:
A) Nowhere did I call Kalev a bigot. I called the remark bigoted. Bigoted means prejudiced and intolerant, and that’s exactly what this remark is. If Kalev feels he’s being called a bigot, perhaps he should stop repeating bigoted opinions such as John Wesley’s, which are an insult to the memory of countless millions of early Christians.
B) I understand your point regarding charity. But being a Christian doesn’t mean we are to sit idle and let pass a lie such as this remark. If you believe I was being “less than charitable,” I wonder what you think of Jesus when in Matt 23 he repeatedly calls the Pharisees hypocrites, blind guides, fools, and “whitewashed tombs.” I guess he didn’t make many friends the day he drove out the money changers and dove sellers from the Temple, overturning their tables, eh? The point here is we must fight lies like these, to be witness to the truth, even if we may appear not to be “nice.” This is how we should “win over” people.
Very well said!
How about this from the Catholic confessions?
“Sunday is founded, not of scripture, but on tradition, and is distinctly a Catholic institution. As there is no scripture for the transfer of the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, Protestants ought to keep their Sabbath on Saturday and thus leave Catholics in full possession of Sunday.” Catholic Record, September 17, 1893
Actually, Scripture shows the disciples celebrating together on Sunday: “On the first day of the week (Sunday) we came together to break bread.” (Acts 20:7) Contributions to churches were to be made on Sunday as well: “On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money…” (1 Cor 16:2) John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the “Lord’s Day.” (Rev 1:10) Finally, Paul specifically downplays the Sabbath in his letter to the Colossians, stating we should not let anyone judge us with regard to the Sabbath, calling it but a “shadow of the things that were to come.” The truth, he states, “is found in Christ.” (Col 2:16-17) Christ defeated Death on Sunday, and hence this should be the most important day in the life of a Christian! Granted, these passages do not specifically transfer worship from the Sabbath to Sunday, but they demonstrate the importance of Sunday to the early Christians, vs. the Sabbath.
But yes, regular practice of worshipping on Sunday is one of those Apostolic traditions handed down to us by the early Christians:
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.” Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.” Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).
“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world…” Teaching of the Apostles, 2 (A.D. 225)
“But after that the grace of Almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For, if any one says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered: he must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the Apostle Paul saying in opposition to him, ‘If ye be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing.’” (Galatians 5:2)Pope Gregory the Great, To the Roman Citizens, Epistle 13:1 (A.D. 597).
BTW, I have no problems in sharing Sunday with my Protestant brothers! The Lord arose on Sunday for all of us together! :-)
They may have come together to break bread on the first day, as this was a well established Hebrew custom but this does not change the day of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. To argue that is an argument out of ignorance.
Let’s look at another Catholic confession concerning the Sabbath. (Don’t worry I have some Protestant confessions that are as bad.)
James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore (1877-1921), in a signed letter.
“Is Saturday the seventh day according to the Bible and the Ten Commandments? I answer yes. Is Sunday the first day of the week and did the Church change the seventh day -Saturday – for Sunday, the first day? I answer yes . Did Christ change the day’? I answer no!
No, Kalev I am not arguing that these passages changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Please read more closely what I wrote, as I already stated that “Granted, these passages do not specifically transfer worship from the Sabbath to Sunday,” but they do demostrate how important “The Lord’s Day” had become to the early Chrisians. In terms of the good Archbishop of Baltimore, I’ll disagree, as I believe it was Christ himself who marked Sunday as the day of worship, by rising from the grave on that day! The early Christians made the change official, and I have no problem with that, and apparently neither do the vast majority of Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic. Christ gave Peter the power to bind and unbind, so its use here causes me no stress. In any case, it would appear you emphasize a God of Laws. I believe in a God of Love, who would understand that the Spirit of the law (to separate a time every week to worship God in love) is more important than what you interpret to still be the letter of the law. Do you really believe it makes a whit of difference in your relation to our Savior, to your salvation, whether you chose Saturday vs Sunday, the day Christ rose from the grave, to honor and worship Him? Is a loving worship of Him more valuable on Saturday? What if one worships unlovingly, but happens to do it on Saturday, does that carry more weight than a loving worship done on Sunday? Cains offerings we’re unpleasing to God vs Abel’s, but it was because of their worth, not because of their date. I suggest you be careful with your emphasis on the letter vs the spirit of the Law, lest you risk appearing as the Pharisees did! :-o
Yeshua was risen well before the sunrise that first day of the week when the women came to the tomb. I well understand the errors of the Pharisees. The Sabbath Command is one of the “forever” or “throughout your generations” commands. I believe it is an issue of salvation.
And the Sabbath Commandment is to rest, nothing noted about worship, Genesis 20:8-11 (NASU), Exodus 20:8-11 (NASU), 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
We should worship God and our Savior everyday.
Kalev states: “Yeshua was risen well before the sunrise that first day of the week when the women came to the tomb.” Are you implying that Jesus did NOT rise on Sunday? That he rose on the Sabbath? How does that mesh with your day of “rest” notion? In any case, Paul states that Christ “was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” (1 Corinthians 15:4) Unless you’re willing to contradict Scripture, I suggest you stop implying Christ did NOT rise on Sunday.
Kalev states, “The Sabbath Command is one of the ‘forever’ or ‘throughout your generations’ commands.'” That’s your presumption. Jesus stated that “All the Law and the Prophets hang on” only two commandments: to Love God and Love your Neighbor (Matt 22:40) -THESE are the “forever” commands, and neither specifies resting on Saturday vs. Sunday. If you believe your love of God/Neighbor is somehow compromised by making Sunday -the day Christ rose from the grave- a holy day instead of Saturday, well, that’s your personal belief.
If the Sabbath “rest” was so important, why do all 4 Gospels show Christ performing miracles (i.e. “work”) on that day? Why does he not reprimand his disciples for picking grain on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23)? The point is we must always have love of God/Neighbor first and foremost. And if that means working on Saturday -or Sunday for that matter- to help others, that carries more weight than the written law. Christ himself uses David’s eating consecrated bread -an unlawful act- to demonstrate that acting in love is more important than observing the written letter of the law (Mark 2:25). “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
Kalev states, the Sabbath “is an issue of salvation.” Really? You mean to tell me millions of God-loving Christians across nearly 2 millennia risk damnation simply because they chose to make Sunday holy vs. Saturday? Silly me, and here I was, thinking Jesus died on the cross to redeem us of our sins… Sorry, Kalev, but my God is much more forgiving than the one you imagine. Jesus himself said the only sin that could not be forgiven was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Unless you really believe that somehow your love of God is tied to making Saturday holy vs. Sunday, I suggest you stop worrying about this one.
Kalev states, “And the Sabbath Commandment is to rest, nothing noted about worship.”
You are right to say that we must worship God every day. But you are incorrect in stating that the Sabbath Commandment is ONLY about rest. Re-read your own Exodus quote: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” I’d venture to say that keeping a day holy means more than simply resting -or are you implying that if I loaf around all Saturday, sleeping in, etc., I have kept the Commandment? Keeping a day holy implies sanctifying it somehow. We do that by observing a day as the Lord’s Day, gathering together and worshipping as a community, something we may not have the time to do during our workweek. In any case, the notion of the Sabbath day of “rest” is destroyed by the fact that Jesus did not rest on Saturday, but rather preached and performed miracles.
I understand your emphasis in keeping the Sabbath may be your way of showing your faith to God (and by extension, your love). But I think your missing the forest for the trees. Far more important than “rest” vs. no rest, on Saturday vs. Sunday, is showing Love -with or without action- on every day.
Yeshua was laid in the tomb as the sun was setting on a wednesday and rose on the Sabbath – Saturday – just as the son was setting, three days and three nights as He said it would be. The Catholic and Protestant traditions of late Friday burial to early Subday resurrection make Him a liar as that is, at best, only 36 hours.
By rest on the Sabbath I mean no laborous work and study in the Word is how I keep the Sabbath Holy, sometimes with other like minded believers where I live.
Yes, you can “assume” I am neither Catholic or Protestant. I believe Yeshua is the Son of God and I am Torah “observant” as He was.
And a student of the Hebrew Roots of Yeshua and His Apostles.
http://www.seedofabraham.net
Kalev:
1) You contradict Scripture in stating Jesus was laid to rest on a Wednesday, as all 4 Gospels state this occurred on Preparation Day, the day before Sabbath i.e. Friday (see Matt 27:62, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, especially John 19:31, “Now it was the Day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath…”). So no, Jesus’ Friday burial is not a “Catholic and Protestant tradition,” it is Scripture.
2) When did Jesus state he would rise “after” 3 days AND 3 nights?? In refering to his body rising, Jesus stated, “I will raise it again in 3 days.” (John 2:19- also see Matt 26:61, Mark 14:58) Sorry, but no “after,” and no nights. Please provide me a Scripture passage if I am wrong.
3) In terms of the “36 hours,”: A) I find it amusing you’d think 1st century Israelites would be so exact in their timekeeping regarding the desceased, and B) Not to be disrespectful, but Jesus never specified the number of hours he’d be dead. He merely stated he’d rise on the 3rd day: He died on Friday (day 1), was desceased on Saturday (day 2), and rose on Sunday (the 3rd day). Given that A) Scripture expressly states he was laid to rest on Friday, and B) Paul expressly stated he rose “on the 3rd day,” the only logical conclusion is that there’s no way he could have risen on the Sabbath. He must’ve risen on Sunday before the women came to the grave.
4. Kalev, I do not doubt your faith in our loving Father, nor your desire to do His will. But in your strive to shun all “traditions of man,” you’re replacing them with your own personal traditions, some which, as evidenced on this thread, contradict the very Scriptures you claim to follow. Reading the Bible alone, with no Church tradition as counterbalance, leaves you at risk of misinterpretation. You risk replacing the traditional church with the traditions of the church inside your head. If you are your own preacher, how will you know if you are straying? Who will correct you if you stray? Other individuals who in turn are their own preachers? Be careful of the path you take, for as Peter said, the Word of God can be hard to interpret.
Dear Kalev,
As far as history of the bible is concerned, the new testament is a product of tradition, the Tradition of the Apostles. To throw out tradition as a source of truth in faith is to open the scriptures to errors in interpretation just like what happened when Luther discarded it. Tradition anchors the scriptures on the faith of the apostles.
When the apostles chose Sunday as day of worship for the christians, what is the fuss about it. Wasn’t Peter given the authority to bind and unbound what soever?
Fear not what Traditions and Scriptures teach. Rather, fear digression from the Tradition because the Scriptures can be twisted to accommodate one’s prejudices.
Constantino
“As far as history of the bible is concerned, the new testament is a product of tradition, the Tradition of the Apostles.”
Presumption. No accepted historical facts to back up your presumption.
Peter was not given authority to modify the Commandments written in stone by the finger of God. Catholic and Protestant confessions on the Sabbath make it irrefutable that it was the traditions of men that changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day, not God’s precepts.
Don’t mean to appear so blunt but I am a “to the point” kind.
Dear Kalev,
This was how the Scriptures were affirmed in canon to be the inerrant Word of God.
“In 367 AD, St. Athanasius published a list of books suitable for reading during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a regional canon for the Eastern Church.
In 382 Pope St. Damasus I approved the work of the first Council of Constantinople accepting St. Athanasius’s list as divinely inspired.
In 393, the Council of Hippo, a regional council of bishops in Africa reaffirmed the decree of Damasus.
In 397 the Council of Carthage reaffirmed the decree of Damasus.
In 418-422, Pope St. Boniface ratified the decision and declared the canon settled for the Western Patriarchate. He sent the decision to the patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, & Jerusalem. At that point the catholic canon of the Sacred Scriptures was informally accepted worldwide.”
Between 33 AD and 367 AD, the Bible was not yet a book you believe as inerrant today. All those years, the word of mouth teachings or the Tradition of the Apostles were the official teachings. And based on these Oral Teachings of the Apostles, the books in the new Testament were selected as faithful to the truths in faith received from the apostles.
You will not be respecting Jesus’ word if you deny that “… whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever you shall loosen on earth shall be loosened in heaven” is an authority he gave without reservation to the Church (built on Peter, the rock) even to change the day of rest written on stone by the finger of God.
We can’t just dismiss other scriptural texts to support what we believe.
Don’t you realize that the “sola scriptura” belief is the one destroying the Body of Christ, the Church? Look how fragmented are the Christians who discarded tradition and insist on scriptures alone!
Constantino
Kalev states, “Peter was not given authority to modify the Commandments written in stone by the finger of God.”
Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; WHATEVER you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 16:19, my emphasis) He did not say, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom, you can bind certain things, except…” Forgive me if I take Jesus at his word, and reject your personal presumptions regarding what Peter could or could not bind/loose.
Please don’t get rid of the Holy Spirit AKA Holy Ghost. I grew up with the idea of “I believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (chaanged to Spirit along the way). I think my own belief in God was right in line with either Holy Spirit or Holy Spirit. God always seemed to me to be a spirit rather than a human form.
But it is not necessary to argue about it or make a decision. God knows and so will we eventually. Does it make any difference to the way we worship? Are we in any position to annouce the form he live in or what he exist in or what he is or isn’t?
Think about it,
Beverly
Hi Beverly
Nothing to think about. We are created in God’s image, body, soul and spirit. The Hebrew word ruach was translated ghost in the olden days but a better translation today is spirit.
Note that ruach also means breath so when God breathed into the clay did He not impart His Spirit into His creation?
We worship God “in spirit and in truth”. John 4:21-23. Yes, it does matter how we worship Him and I quote:
“Notice the contrast here between the “true worshipers” and the Samaritans who followed their own traditions rather than the Word of God. This verse clearly demonstrates that God SEEKS true worshipers. There is such a thing as false worship, or ignorant worship. The Samaritans were guilty of ignorant worship. Jesus contrasts this with “true worship.”” (see, for example http://www.scripturessay.com/article.php?cat=&id=387 ).
Chris
Seems to me Peter is saying Paul’s epistles are equal to Scripture.
And Peter was warning not to twist Paul’s writings to mean something Paul did not say, which many people do today. Many claim Paul “did away with the Law” but Paul taught how Torah was applicable to the believer in Yeshua. If Pauls said Torah was “done away with” why would he have taken a Nazarite vow, Acts 21:17-26?
Acts chapter 21 Apostle Paul continues his base bourish behavior of stirring up trouble among the people, “kicking against the pricks”. He taught salvation by grace speaking for Gentiles and Romans to enter the Temple of God. Orthodox Jews found this unacceptable and Paul is beaten by the people for his teaching. Paul lacked a great deal of tact in communicating his opinions. Not exactly a crowd pleaser but never the less Christianity has bulit upon his teachings. That seems to be the reason that Ann Rice has left Christianity. Her writings reveal she didn’t leave God but what Christianity has become. Yor mention Acts 21:17-26 ,a Nazarite rite. I assume you are talking about the healthy practice of circumcision ? The Bible has little to no medical science recorded, so we are on our own to be healthy. If we live an unhealthy life style we will experience an early body death. All Biblical characters were ignorant of medical science! Examples are…nothing about white or red blood cell count or when brain damage occurs with no heart beat…also exactly when cell reproduction stops when the death cycle begins.
“faith without works is dead.” James 2:26b
Avraham was justified by his works by his faith.
Clearly, it appears to me, that works of righteousness has some merit for the believer. Isn’t that what James is saying in the 2nd chapter of his epistle?
Kalev, I agree with you here!
I do believe that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” But at the same time, as James said, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith, but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? …Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” To me faith is not just believing in God, as “even the demons believe that -and shudder.” Faith implies accepting/obeying His commandments as best we can. It must include a conscious effort to do good works. The two are inseparable. As James says, “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” Referring to Abraham’s offering of Isaac, he noted that “His faith and his actions were working together, and his faith WAS MADE COMPLETE by what he did.”
Christ implies on several occasions that our works on earth have implications in the afterlife. “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.” (Matt 16:27) Christ says “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Mark 10:21) If faith alone was enough, why not say, “Go and have faith, and you will have treasure in heaven”? Christ also warns us we could be shut out if we fail to act on our faith: “Depart from me, you who are cursed… I tell you the truth, whatever you did NOT do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did NOT do for me.” (Matt 25:40-45) In the parable of the talents, was the master not pleased with those who actually did something with their talents (vs. the one who simply buried it)? Paul, as well states, “the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.” (1 Cor 3:13-14)
We will never be justified on our works alone. But faith must be more than just thought, it must be translated into acts. If we are truly faithful, our good works must show. Christ himself said: “By their fruit you will recognize them… Every good tree bears good fruit…” (Matthew 7:16-17)
Paul does say that “by grace are you saved, through faith, not of works.” Is he contradicting James? I believe Paul is not referring to good works done out of faith/love, but to Mosaic law works, i.e. the ritualistic sacrifices and “good works” that Jews were commanded to do under Mosaic law. Many would do these out of ritual, not out of love, and act as if that were enough to “buy” their way into Heaven. It’s similar to the erroneous notion some Catholics have that if they go to church every weekend they’ve done enough. God “owes” them salvation. But God has no contractual obligation with us. If we go to 1,000 church services and demand “payment” for them, we will get none. Salvation is a gift, but one to which we are called to correspond to equally as such in return. If we are faithful to God, and do good works out of love, as a gift to God, He will be pleased with us. So I don’t see a contradiction between Paul and James. Paul says ritualistic works will not save you, as only your faith can, while James says if you truly have faith, it must show through good works (done out of love, not obligation/expectancy of payment).
Note that Abraham lived BEFORE the law was given.
Yes, James said “show me your faith and I will show you your works.”
We do good works as a RESPONSE to the saving power of Jesus’ death and resurrection, NOT as a means to obtain favour in God’s eyes.
Good works and keeping the law are NOT synonymous.
If you keep the law to get saved you are not only failing, you are also making it clear that Jesus’ death and resurrection were unnecessary for you.
Taking care of the widows and the orphans are works. We do this in the strength God gives us because of our faith in Him. This has NOTHING to do with keeping the law in order to obtain salvation.
Note what Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians 9:20 – “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.”
I am not saying that we must be lawless, I’m saying that we can now follow God’s commands (law if you like) through the unction of the Holy Spirit and not through the writings of Moses. Jesus said in Matt 5:20 – “For I tell you that unless your righteousness SURPASSES that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
No it concerned taking a Nazarite vow, Numbers 6. If the “Law” was done away with why did James and the elders insist Paul participate in the Vow to get the non-believeing Jews from possibly stoning Paul for supposedly teaching the Gentiles that Torah was done away with?
Have you ever considered, the hero’s of the church you mentioned, were successful inspite of the Roman Church?
Raymond, I assume you are referring to my prior post.
Nobody can deny the Catholic Church is imperfect -our first Pope is on record for denying Christ three times! :-o But despite knowing this, Christ still made Peter the rock upon which he built his church, giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and the power to “bind” and “loosen.” The Church is not perfect (I challenge you to show me one that is), but that doesn’t mean it’s not God’s Church. The heroes of the Church knew the Church’s history, some of which indeed is not good. But despite this, they did not abandon the Church, nor did they stop obeying the Pope. If they would have had philosophical, doctrinal, or “faith” differences with the Church, I’d assume they would have left -this is especially true for our modern heroes. But the Church heroes never left. Despite its faults, they believed in the Church’s doctrines. They believed in the Church as God’s Church on Earth. They remained faithful, and so will I.
In terms of history, you can argue the faults in the Church, but that’s like arguing the faults of any nation or church’s history. Is your nation a “bad country” because it once embraced slavery? Or is it lawless/evil because many of its to leaders have been corrupt? Are Puritans evil for participating in the Salem witch trials? Protestants have the luxury of not having been around during the Middle Ages, hence can’t be judged on occurrences therein. In any case, you love your nation/church for what it stands for today, despite missteps along the way.
BTW, I respect my Protestant brethren, for I see the Holy Spirit in many of them. I reject hostile sweeping remarks attempting to stereotype Catholics or judge the entire Church. These remarks say more about the author’s ignorance or prejudices, than about the Church. But I do welcome honest debate on specific doctrines, etc. Jesus left us two basic commandments: love God and neighbor. Neither said you must be a Catholic in order to receive the Holy Spirit. We may be members of different Christian churches here on Earth, but in the end, if we follow these commandments, God willing, we shall all be members of ONE “catholic” (as in, “universal”) Church in Heaven.
Cheers! :-)
Dear Cristian, if I may,
First a Quote:
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” Rene Descartes
Second a little Prolegomena:
Thank you for your reply but I have heard it all many years ago. You write to me as if I have no prior knowledge of the Roman Church. Having been raised in your faith, Mass every morning for eight years, Gregorian chant in the choir, Latin as an alter boy etc. Still remember many of the Latin prayer’s. Which has about as much value as a man who has attended years of Seminary and then proclaims, “Let us pray”, and proceeds to open a book to read prayers that some else had written (but I do not want to focus on that sort of thing). You mention a church in Heaven? Not sure where that’s coming from or what they do?
Later in life I moved on into the Pentecostal and then the Charismatic experience. Promoted FGBMFI throughout the Middle East as well as here at home etc. etc. Worked with the Billy Graham Ministry, and some of the other well known healing ministries e.g., Kathryn Kuhlman, etc.
Attended fourteen different Seminaries, completed a Master’s Degree of Divinity, easily could have a Dr. Degree but I am not led to write. As far as I’m concerned, all of this tutoring and the wonderful experiences coupled with $5.00 would hardly be enough to purchase a good hamburger and fries. End prolegomenon.
Cristian, I have not considered myself a Roman Catholic or Protestant for some time. Reason being, doctrines make organizations ..Jesus on the other hand makes a Body just like His own, a place to lay His Head, a living organism in the world for today. They are the Sons of God that all creation is standing on tippy toes for. Just like on the day of the “Great Feast of Tabernacles” when Jesus stood up and proclaimed for those who are thirsty. Only requirement…intimacy (love), and dialog, just as He had with His Father. I would say this precludes most professing Christians. They are too busy flexing their doctrinal and carnal muscles of Adam’s soulical reasoning. A couple of minutes of spiritual intimacy with Father should cure this dilemma of the fallen nature. St. Paul had plenty of man’s teachings before He saw “The Light”. We are born again once, but saved in spirit, soul, and body, continuously until perfection or transformation.
It is His Spirit, Life and Light, followed by Systematic theology, knowledge of church history, as well of the original languages, etc., that would discredit much of what goes on in the cat and dog fight on this site. One founder of Gestalt therapy dismisses much of what goes on as “mind screwing” (last word cleaned up.) And yet, there are many treasures of truth proclaimed here but lost in the shuffle and game playing of ego’s.
Bravo to those who love Truth, Jesus is The Truth. Jesus called the religious of His day sons of their father the devil (Jn 8:44). Can we not see the father of religion is the devil who was a murderer from the beginning i.e., not a great angel who fell, but a designed devil to proclaim salvation by works? I believe it was Jacob Boehme who said, the church has become “buildings of stone”, instead of living stones filled with priests.
The reason many of the early heroes didn’t leave the Roman Church is because they had little choice, or thought they could change it , only to get their revelation watered down like St. Francis of Assisi. When the darkness began to come off from the believer’s understanding and Scripture became the authority instead of the Pope’s Ex Cathedra (Papal infallibility), then secondly traditions, the Church (East and West) had plenty of those along with and including the bones and hair of the saints. The true Tradition Paul mentions to preach has a capital letter “T” and it is a person…Jesus! Maybe we preach too many small “t’s” only because the only “T” most know is the one who walked in the land of the Bible, but that wasn’t Jesus it was the Father. We know Him now after the Spirit not after the flesh i.e., unless He reveals himself as a life quickening Spirit, an apparition, or through the believer as an anointing. It will always be His Spirit Life manifesting itself one way or another.
As the hidden mysteries in scripture become revealed, opening the eyes of the reader to see (know) God’s purpose for the world and how He will bring it about though His Sons (uios not teknion), only full overcomers reach this high level not theologians, but theosis is attained. One must experience that it’s Jesus that gives life not the writings. (Rom. 5:37-40). Scripture became the first authority to the Church.
The believers did leave, but as the HS directed. Each having the free will to stay, or the free will to leave (God raised up circumstances and predestined them to exercise their free will to go as He directed His purpose in their lives… just like Jonah).
If you are aware of the three major feasts in Israel You would also be aware of what they represent in our experiences as we progress into His Enlightenment. Or, how the three days become two thousand years of Church meetings, etc. and one thousand years as a many-member body (leading to a complete transformation into immortality and incorruptibility) with one head, the church systems will not be able to accomplish this, only a transformation by God!
As for me I haven’t considered myself an Orthodox or Protestant for many years…what’s left?…just a believer and partaker of the Way, Truth, and Light, how wonderful it is to have continuous communion with Papa. The Father of us all! Scripture confirms these things.
We are god’s (elohiym), but will die like men because of missing the mark.
Psalm 82:6 Ye are gods (elohiym); and all of you are children of the most High. 7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. also see Jn 10:34 (theos)
Paul did not say, Christ coming again the hope of glory, but rather “Christ in you is the hope of glory” few so called Christians can talk about the Living Christ or Jesus alive NOW! Only doctrine from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, carnal mindedness, most of which is heard is vanity. Let’s hear more about the Kingdom that is experienced and commanded to preach. As you know there were only local churches that emerged from the Apostles not denominations or organizations. Let’s be about Our Father’s business and Preach not faith affiliations but a living Gospel of His King and the Kingdom within. Not a building made with hands.
Religion tries to dress up a monkey to look like a man. The clothes are works to better one’s self by their own effort. Maybe St. Francis missed the point when the voice told him to repair my house. Could it have been the house within? This is where God dwells.
Francis would call his body, “Brother Ass”. He tried to subdue it, but, only Christ Jesus could, can, and will do this, and He doesn’t need help from Adam.
I know this will trigger all kinds of responses and I’m pretty sure I have heard them all, besides debating doesn’t accomplish much, only the living Christ (Anointing) within, as He leads and teaches can make a difference. The Church systems and organizations are very marginal, as they were meant to be. How far would the Roman Church be if they weren’t Militant? If not for rising up arms and killing or hiring others to kill their enemies, or treating their brothers (orthodox) worse than the Muslims did? Even to the defecation on their alters? Maybe they could have learned something from the Eastern Churches. One would be that all are Redeemed at the Cross! It is FINISHED!
Believers should stop making excuses for their carnal mind by putting on the Christ Mind and walking in the Spirit so not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Read some of the Mystics like Jacob Boehme or Jane Lead.
For those of you who haven’t heard there is a perfect church in the world but it can’t be found by religious arguments.
Eternal Blessings! He will be All in All! As He comes IN His saints.
One last thing then I’m outta here… found it helpful to ponder the thought… Were we sent on this planet as human beings to have a spiritual experience, or, a spiritual beings to have human experience? … Who was that Brother Ass St. Francis referred too?
Author: Cristian Tampe
Comment:
Raymond, I assume you are referring to my prior post.
Nobody can deny the Catholic Church is imperfect -our first Pope is on record for denying Christ three times! :-o But despite knowing this, Christ still made Peter the rock upon which he built his church, giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and the power to “bind” and “loosen.” The Church is not perfect (I challenge you to show me one that is), but that doesn’t mean it’s not God’s Church. The heroes of the Church knew the Church’s history, some of which indeed is not good. But despite this, they did not abandon the Church, nor did they stop obeying the Pope. If they would have had philosophical, doctrinal, or “faith” differences with the Church, I’d assume they would have left -this is especially true for our modern heroes. But the Church heroes never left. Despite its faults, they believed in the Church’s doctrines. They believed in the Church as God’s Church on Earth. They remained faithful, and so will I.
In terms of history, you can argue the faults in the Church, but that’s like arguing the faults of any nation or church’s history. Is your nation a “bad country” because it once embraced slavery? Or is it lawless/evil because many of its to leaders have been corrupt? Are Puritans evil for participating in the Salem witch trials? Protestants have the luxury of not having been around during the Middle Ages, hence can’t be judged on occurrences therein. In any case, you love your nation/church for what it stands for today, despite missteps along the way.
BTW, I respect my Protestant brethren, for I see the Holy Spirit in many of them. I reject hostile sweeping remarks attempting to stereotype Catholics or judge the entire Church. These remarks say more about the author’s ignorance or prejudices, than about the Church. But I do welcome honest debate on specific doctrines, etc. Jesus left us two basic commandments: love God and neighbor. Neither said you must be a Catholic in order to receive the Holy Spirit. We may be members of different Christian churches here on Earth, but in the end, if we follow these commandments, God willing, we shall all be members of ONE “catholic” (as in, “universal”) Church in Heaven.
Cheers! :-)
Raymond, if I may,
You have quite an admirable background, and I commend you. Though I’d caution you on making overly patronizing, less than humble remarks as “I have heard it all many years ago,” or “I’m pretty sure I have heard them all, besides debating doesn’t accomplish much…” which imply there’s no use in replying, as there’s nothing I (or anyone else) could ever teach you, as, well, you’ve heard it all before. True, I don’t have a Masters or a near-Doctorate in Divinity, but I doubt Jesus would make that a prerequisite to following Him. Perhaps that’s why I find it sad how you trivialize the faith of so many Christians around you, or that have come before you, with statements like “I would say this precludes most professing Christians,” or elitist remarks like “only full overcomers reach this high level…” I’d venture to say many of the poor -that is, the majority of the world’s Christians- who have little time or capacity to study as much as you, have a very real relation with Christ. I doubt Christ would deny them -would you? It’s commendable that you seek a personal relation with the living, breathing God. But we are meant to live in community, to all be part of the Body of Christ. Your emphasis on your individual communion with God (while disparaging the ocean of Christians around you) risks obviating the need for communion with neighbor. You risk the same mistake Anne Rice made, leaving the community of Christians while somehow still calling herself one. Instead of “quarrelsome,” you label your Christians as “ignorant.”
I do find it curious that you’d go to such length in writing that the only Way is Christ, denouncing organized religions built on buildings, when nowhere in my posts did I state you had to be a member of a specific religion in order to receive the HS. On the contrary, I finished my last post precisely by saying that what you essentially needed was love of God and neighbor, nothing more -and to truly love God, you must have a relationship with Him, which, as I understand, is what you have been saying all along. I remain in the Catholic Church because through it I find both God and community, despite human mistakes within it. I believe it to be the true heir to the Church Jesus left on Earth. BTW, for me the term “church” does not refer to a building, but to the community that makes the building. And our universal church in Heaven will be the communion of saints, to which I hope you and I shall form part of. You of all people should know “church” comes from the Greek kuriakos, meaning, “of the Lord,” or “the Lord’s thing,” which doesn’t necessarily refer to a specific building.
I wonder, if you’ve renounced all formal “religious” doctrines, how can you be so sure of how to interpret Scripture? A mind can easily trick itself into seeing what it wants, to distort Scripture to its own destruction, as Peter warned in his second letter. By renouncing other doctrines, believing you have a better way, eventually you will define your own doctrine, risking justifying your own desires. In renouncing to all churches, you have merely replaced those churches for the church inside your head. You decide what to accept! You are the preacher, the choir, and the faithful all in one! If not through outside direction, how can you be sure what you decide is the right way to interpret Scripture?
I find it amusing you’d start off by quoting Descartes (who, BTW, was Catholic) in stating that we must question everything “at least once” in life. Did you question Jesus? Did you question Scripture? Apparently not, as you quote Scripture as truth, and firmly state “Jesus is The Truth.” That’s good, and I agree. So I don’t see the point to Descartes’ quote, as you yourself don’t seem to follow it. Was it only an attempt to get me to question the Church’s doctrines? Even though you assert to have “heard it all before,” I find your apparent knowledge on Catholicism to be rudimentary at best. If you were hearing mass in Latin, you must’ve been really young when you left. It’s odd you’d state “When the darkness began to come off from the believer’s understanding and Scripture became the authority instead of the Pope’s Ex Cathedra,” then turn around and say that “Scripture became the first authority to the Church.” So which is it? Just in case you haven’t heard, not everything the Pope says is considered infallible. In fact, the invocation of Papal infallibility is extremely rare. More common are doctrines established by ecumenical councils, based on interpretation of Scripture as well as writings of the Church Fathers. And I seriously doubt your opinion that the Church heroes didn’t leave the Catholic Church “because they had little choice.” As you yourself pointed out, St. Francis heard God’s voice telling him to “rebuild” His Church. If God had little interest in this church on Earth, he would’ve told St. Francis to leave and start a new one, don’t ya think? And that says nothing of our more modern heroes, like Mother Theresa, or Saint Damien of Molokai who worked tirelessly to show love of God and love of others through the Church they believed in.
Finally a few tidbits I’ll quibble about:
You dismiss the value of works, stating they are merely the clothes on a monkey. Yet St. James noted that a faith without works is a “dead faith”….
You state that “The Church systems and organizations are very marginal..” Yet Christianity existed as only a “church,” with no Bible for nearly 3 centuries. And it was the Church, through inspiration from the HS that codified the Scripture writings you quote today. If the Bible is infallible, then the Church must’ve made an infallible decision when codifying it. If, with the guidance of the HS, the Church was infallible in this, why not on other issues?
“How far would the Roman Church be if they weren’t Militant?” If you are referring to the Crusades here, well, they occurred about 1,000 years after the inception of the Catholic Church, so I’d say the Church got pretty far without “militancy.” And in addressing moments where the Church did, unfortunately, condone the use of force (I already addressed delving into Church history in my previous post), you ignore centuries of peaceful missionary work throughout Europe, Africa, Asia, and even the Americas by scores of missionaries, like the Jesuits or the Columban Priests. And you ignore the “militant” force that was Islam, knocking at the gates of Europe. If it weren’t for “militancy” in that era, much of Europe would probably ended up Muslim. Assuming you are of European descent, all I’ll say is that if it weren’t for your “militant” Catholic forefathers, you might’ve ended up praying in the direction of Mecca 5 times a day…
” there is a perfect church in the world…” which one, the one you designate?
Anyway, this has been interesting. Feel free to reply, as I, for one, have not heard it all before. Perhaps I’m too young still, and have much to learn. BTW, though, if I were to choose a mystic to read, I think I’d stick with St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila over later Protestant mystics. Sorry, just a personal choice. :-D
Above all, despite our differences, let us remember that we worship the same God, in the face of a world that’s becoming more and more indifferent to its Creator. There’s more that unites us than divides us. My apologies if in anything I have sounded offensive. May God bless you and keep you. May He shine His face upon you -always! :-)
Dear Raymond,
My grandfather used to tell me, if you want your glass to be always filled, you must empty it.
I suggest you empty your glass of knowledge in a pitcher so new information will fill it.
I am a Roman Catholic like Christian and an avid defender of the Catholic Church. I thought I have all the knowledge that I need to defend it. But I don’t have, really. I hate to read religious books authored by non-catholics, even if the authors have doctorates in their resume. To me they are simply false teachers, spreading their errors. Then there was this book, True Life in God, written by a Greek Orthodox, Ms. Vassula Ryden, who claims she has no religious education, set foot in the church only in baptisms, weddings, and burials. As far as I know Greek Orthodox preach that Roman Catholics are heretics. But her claims of ignorance about religious education intrigued
me. So I read the book. In that book I hear the Voice of the Shepherd whose regard about christians is so different from ours.
I challenge you, for curiosity’s sake read the book. Your degrees and achievements will pale in comparison to that uneducated woman’s writings. Just click “TLIG” and the book is yours to judge.
Constantino
Excuse me if I do not answer many of these call outs, I am very busy and much of my time is spent in fellowship with Our Father. It’s been said, if we keep silent people may not know how ignorant we are. I try to remain silent.
For some reason those who feel they have to defend their religious belief by bashing me, let me qualify a portion of God’s leading in my life on this planet, especially as a Roman Catholic…8 yrs everyday mass, alter boy, choir and catechism every day for an hour.
12 hours of post graduate work at the Catholic Theological Seminary (CTU), my favorite prof. is now Pres. 3 hours studies in Israel in a place called Tantur Ecumenical Institute (http://tantur.org/ a place instituted by Pope Paul VI. Notre Dame had donated 10 Million dollars to help get it started. Studies included East and West Orthodox adherents; also many Protestant Churches from around the world were represented. For your information, it may surprise you that many theological books and other literature with other Christian views are studied in earnest not for contradiction but edification and a will to broaden themselves so as not to be narrow minded in their search for Truth. I have found great respect among the educators for one another. Bless their hearts, those that ask, seek, and knock will honor the Holy Spirit. Eventually we will come not into one Religion but one faith, baptism, etc. and into a Corporate Body with Christ Jesus as it’s Head!
As a founder of a Charismatic Fellowship we were the only non-Catholic group meeting once a month with well known (Pres. of Notre Dame, etc.) leaders in the main body of your organization and about 200 guides in the Charismatic Renewal.
We are instructed to reckon the old man dead; Jesus accomplished this at the Cross. Why do we continue to raise that carnal religious man from the dead? The ego doesn’t die easy. There’s a faith of man (good and evil) which is temporary, and there’s a faith of God that leads us into Eternal Enlightenment. Rom. (8 vs. ff.), (Gal. 2:20).
Carnal man tends to be in competition with himself in every walk of life. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to be challenged to walk in the Spirit so as not to fulfill the lusts of the flesh? Most of us have never really had many experiences in the Spirit if any at all. Many are born into a religious persuasion, filled with brainwashing doctrines, from there to a limited knowledge as to who we really are. Some (not saying you), are very shallow in their position and are little more than google search replies.
To help clarify Constantino, I’m not a Protestant. I do not go around protesting the Roman belief systems. Mainly because I believe in predestination, so why would I debate people who haven’t a choice? Please don’t answer these questions…been there done that. Now you do the same if it challenges you to grow in your own understanding and Enlightenment.
I know and experience my God (all Three Persons). This is sufficient for me! Religion has no place.
We are all His children.
Thank God,
Just one of the EnChristed.
Remember…Christ in you (pl in the gr) the hope of glory!
Catholic Edition of the Revised Standard Version 1966 Catholic Biblical
Asso.
Ephesians Chapter 1
1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are also faithful * in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3* Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. 5 He destined us in love * to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6* to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7* In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 which he lavished upon us. 9 For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ 10* as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 11 In him, according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14* which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. 15* For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love * toward all the saints, 16* I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18* having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20* which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21* far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; 22* and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23* which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.
May you and your Grandfather be blessed with the same prayer Paul prayed for the Ephesians.
Author: constantino
Comment:
Dear Raymond,
My grandfather used to tell me, if you want your glass to be always filled, you must empty it.
I suggest you empty your glass of knowledge in a pitcher so new information will fill it.
I am a Roman Catholic like Christian and an avid defender of the Catholic Church. I thought I have all the knowledge that I need to defend it. But I don’t have, really. I hate to read religious books authored by non-catholics, even if the authors have doctorates in their resume. To me they are simply false teachers, spreading their errors. Then there was this book, True Life in God, written by a Greek Orthodox, Ms. Vassula Ryden, who claims she has no religious education, set foot in the church only in baptisms, weddings, and burials. As far as I know Greek Orthodox preach that Roman Catholics are heretics. But her claims of ignorance about religious education intrigued
me. So I read the book. In that book I hear the Voice of the Shepherd whose regard about christians is so different from ours.
Raymond,
Thank you for the reminder. Indeed, scriptures and religions must be studied for purposes of uniting the faith, not to divide christians. The book “True Life in God” which are messages of God given to Vassula Ryden, an Orthodox, calls all Christians to UNITY. To miss to read the book is to miss hearing GOD SPEAK TO MANKIND IN OUR TIME. That is why I am recommending the book to be read by everybody so that we will know the way to UNITY. It is useless debating each other in this forum. It only results in recriminations. I am also a charismatic. I lead a charismatic prayer group gathering every Saturday to pray and share scriptures. I organize Life in the Spirit Seminars and I witnessed how the Holy Spirit touch people’s heart in the Baptism in the Spirit and change them and lead them to close personal relationships with Jesus Christ. I
believe we do not stop there in prayer meetings. Loving the Lord Jesus Christ is to help him lead all Christians to unite under His Name, to be one in faith so as to worship Him as one people. Nobody can change your position by arguing with you in this forum. This is true to everyone else interacting here. Only Jesus Christ can do that, if you hear what He is saying to mankind these days. Please read the book from the beginning if you are really for unity. Just click TLIG.
Thank you.
Constantino
Thank you Raymond Janisch. Well written, you are doing as I am just from a different path, less the theology schools. God bless you brother. And God bless all of you here, shalom, it’s time to move on and complete a process of ordination I am working on; praise Yeshua for the opportunity.
I thank you as well Keleu, I have noticed your posts and they are refreshing.
You are in my prayers and declarations if you approve.
Taking liberty I’d like to share with you a teaching by a friend of mine, Elwin Roach on 2 Cor. 5:17-18
Chapter Twenty One
Jonathan Mitchell Translation
In this translation Mitchell emphasized the force of the Greek verb tenses by adding English words which show the proper meaning. For example, I use the word “continuously,” “continually,” “repeatedly,” “constantly,” or “progressively,” to emphasize the “lineal” aspect of the action which is indicated by the writer when choosing to use the Greek present tense. Use of this tense means that the action is continuous, repeated, habitual or progressive. This has also been described as the “incomplete” verb tense, as contrasted to the “complete” tenses: the prefect tense, and the pluperfect.
1. Then I saw “a new (new in nature; different from the usual; better than the old; superior in value and attraction; new in quality) atmosphere (or: sky; or: heaven) and a new Land (or: earth)” [Isa. 65:17; 66:22], for the first (former; preceding; earlier) atmosphere (or: heaven) and the first (former, preceding) Land (or: earth) went away (or: pass away), and the sea does not exist any longer.
2. And I saw the set-apart (or: holy) city, a new Jerusalem, continuously (or: progressively) descending from out of the atmosphere (or: heaven), from God, being prepared (having been made ready) as a bride, being arranged (having been set in order; adorned; decorated) for (or: by) her man (husband; a male person of full age and stature).
3. And I heard a great voice from out of the throne [other MSS: atmosphere; heaven] saying, “Consider! God’s tent (the Tabernacle of God) [is] with mankind (the humans), and He will live in a tent (dwell in a Tabernacle) with them, and they will be (will exist being) His people, and God Himself will be with them [some MSS add: their God].’ [Lev. 26:11-12; Isa. 7:14; 8:8, 10; Jer. 31:33; Ezk. 37:27; 2 Chr. 6:18]
4. “And He will anoint (smear; wipe away) every tear from their eyes. And death will no longer exist (or: the death shall be no more) – neither will mourning (sadness; grief), nor an outcry, nor hard work (painful toil; misery) exist any longer ([they] will be no more), because the FIRST THINGS went (passed) away.”
5. And the One (or: He [who is]) continuously sitting upon the throne said, “Consider this! I am presently making all things new (or: habitually creating everything [to be] new and fresh; progressively forming the whole anew)!” Next He is saying [to me], “Write, because these words are faithful ones (ones full of faith) and true ones.”
6. Then He said to me, “They have come into being (been born; come to be) and stand accomplished (are produced) [Concordant Gr. Text reads, with Sinaiticus: I have become (been born)!; Griesbach reads “gegone”: It has been done; Rotherham simply says: Accomplished; Barclay, Young, Beck, NASB, NKJV, Amplified all read w/Griesbach; Weymouth, Williams, Wuest, Robertson & Vincent read w/the Nestle-Aland & Metzger Text, “gegonan” (3rd. per. pl.)]. I am the Alpha and the Omega: The Beginning (Origin) and The End (The Goal; Consummation; The Finished Product). “To him who is continuously thirsty, I will give from out of the spring (fountain) of the Water of the Life, as an undeserved (free) gift (or: I will freely give…).
7. “The one habitually overcoming will inherit (acquire by lot) these things, and I will be a God for him (in him; to him) and he will be a son [Griesbach reads: the son] for Me (in Me; to Me).
http://godfire.net/beginning_of_the_end1.html
Have All Things Really Been Made New, and Are All Things Really of God?
“Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God…” (2 Cor. 5:17-18). What do we think about this? Have all the old things really passed away and become new? And are all things of God? Again, how can we reconcile verses like this with what we see? It has not been easy, to say the least, and since neither of these scenarios have taken place, at least from outward appearances, they are often said to be speaking of spiritual things.
“I am sure we have a general grasp of what is being said; but for clarity’s sake we may need to take in hand our grammatical shovels and add to our comprehension concerning these sometimes hard to understand verses. It is not always an easy task to translate from the Greek to another language and get the full meaning; but we will note some things that will help. The tense of the verbs — are passed away and are become new — is in the indicative, aorist, active. With this we will amplify these verses in order to convey more accurately what the Greek reflects:
“Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation, the old things HAVE passed, ARE passing, and SHALL CONTINUE to pass away; behold all things HAVE become, ARE becoming, and SHALL CONTINUE to become new. And all these NEW THINGS are of God.” You see, we are being told that those things in which Paul referenced, the things that are having become new, are of God. There is a transition, inner working, progressive action of the old things passing away, as well as a transition, inner working, progressive action of the new things coming into place. This shows a little of what the aorist voice is. It is action in the simplest form. It is undefined and does not distinguish between complete or incomplete action. Therefore, if the aorist action is indistinguishable, we cannot say that all the old things have passed away, or that all things have become new. That is why the translators said are passed away, and are become new. Such is not a totally accurate way of translating it; but it is as close as the English language affords.”
Shalom Aleichem
Thank you Raymond, insightful in my opinion and I am looking forward to the replies to this posting.
My views on the Catholic Church, I must admit, is heavily influenced by “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop. I know that may garner much criticism from many on this blog but I feel that honesty on this subject is right.
I left the Protestant “churches” after discovering many of the unscriptural “doctrines” of these “churches” and the divisions within them. I turned 180 degrees from Yeshua in my early 20’s and lived for me only for some 25 years. It almost cost me my life, literally. One day I heard God asking me if I had had enough of that way of living, I confessed that I had, repented of the lifestyle I was living and allowed God complete dominion over my life in the Name of His Son. That’s been been over 6-1/2 years now and I would never go back.
I have a younger brother (blood) that Yeshua has used me to lead back to Abba. He has had some really good questions as of late. I sure would appreciate prayer so I can continue to have the “right” answers for him.
Shalom be unto you also brother!
Dear Cristian,
It’s obvious we have differences in doctrine, experiences, Enlightenment etc. There was a time when I would have loved to debate your words but it leads nowhere. Luther himself said to his disciples not to destroy the rosaries and other things of their belief but rather teach them a better and more true way and they will destroy them on their own.
At any rate I hope you will join me in not wanting to live in or near a “hornets nest”
Blessings of this day and a life of peace ahead for you and your loved ones!
Love,
Ray
Fair enough, Ray! With respect, we can mutually agree to disagree on some issues, yet still share a common love for our One God. It’s better to build bridges over our differences, and not dig the chasm deeper. God willing, we shall all be redeemed together in the blood of Christ!
In Christ, with love
Cristan :-)
What are your thoughts on death, specifically; where does the Bible teach humanity would never die before the fall? Other than having access to the Tree of Life.
Another question, what exactly did Jesus accomplish dying on the cross? I have heard it taught that humanity was restored to a sinless condition. Galatians 2:20 teaches a form of self cruxcifiction…if a person tries to crucify themselves, it is an impossible act to do…you always have one hand left.
So Jesus didn’t restore access to the Tree of Life.
Jesus did perform an act of abnication or substutionary death for thoughs accepting his death act?
Jesus was the libation, sacrifice for many.
Humanity had access to God before the fall, after the fall, and before the crucifixion and after the crucifixion.
God’s creation has always had access to God.
What’s going on here ! ?
Hi,Perry found Anne Rice’s statement that she ceased to be a Christian because she left the Church at odds with…….Reality. It brings us to the Question of Organized Religion…….and its Whole system of man made rules and regulations not to mention brain washing. Jesus (or Yeshua)said to Peter….. Upon This Rock I will Build My Church….. He was Talking about Himself (The Rock of Ages)…..not Peter…… which is The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said….. I am The Way, The Truth,and The Life, unfortunately people put the Church before God……Jesus by declaring I Am The Way told us to Follow Him, in Plain Words He is The Church……….Regards, thank You For Providing a Web Site where The Truth can Be Discussed Openly…..God Bless…John Foley
John Foley,
I think the correct interpretation of the institution of the Church on a “rock” is to take it in all the context that Jesus conveyed in his statements. First he calls Peter a rock and on this rock he will build his Church. If Jesus was referring to himself as the rock, he should have said, I am the rock and on this rock I will build my church. Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock on which he will build his church, a church that will endure until he returns. History proves this. The church built on Peter still exists today headed by Peter’s 265th successor.
Incidentally, the St. Peter’s Basilica sits on the bones of St. Peter. I recommend you read the book “The Bones of St. Peter”. You can browse it in the internet under the same title. Perhaps it will enlighten you. The book is a product of scientific archeological research.
Hope this exercise will bring Christians closer to unity.
Constantino
Hi Constantino
1. There is no such word as church in scripture.
2. Peter (Greek Cephas) means small piece of rock, a stone in essence.
3. Peter had just confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. (Matt 16:16)
4. Jesus confirms that Peter’s revelation was from the Father in heaven.
5. Jesus then says “Upon this rock (of your confession) I will build my community or assembly (those called out).”
This pronouncement doesn’t make Peter the bishop of anything. He is still a disciple and as such, his duty is to make known the gospel, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles.
IMHO the catholic church of Rome got it wrong.
Chris
Dear Kalev,
I quoted a post from the Catholic Answers regarding traditions. Please refer to it. It may remove some of your misconception about traditions.
You see, traditions of the apostles bridges the gap between the pre-scriptures times and the post-scriptures times. Without that bridge one cannot cross over to the True Church and to the True Jesus, thus will remain in the false church and believe in the false Jesus.
Remember, Jesus warned about that. Many will come in his name and deceive many, even the elect.
Constantino
Thanks
Hi, Constantino when Jesus met Peter for the first time Peters name was Simon. Jesus called him Petros the English of which is Peter, Petra means Rock so possibly Petros means Rock. Now as You so wisely point out we should put it in the context it was written in. Jesus asked His Disciples But who do you say that I am…. Peter answered…… You are the Christ, the Son of the living God…..Jesus replied for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,but My Father who is in heaven. Then He went on to say….you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. putting this into context it could be taken that Peter was the first true believer and all the other true believers would also be rocks on which the church would be built. It would also appear that St Paul never regarded Peter as being the leader of the Apostles saying on a visit to Jerusalem that James seemed to be the leader. As a Matter of fact on one occasion Paul rebuked Peter. Also, Paul said that it was he Paul whom Jesus commissioned to go to the gentiles and does not mention Peter when he Paul went to Rome…..Regards… God Bless………….John Foley
Dear John,
For lack of documents and historical records, our search for what really transpired in the times of the apostles can only be mere speculations and our speculations will always be subjective and influenced by the beliefs of the group or church where we belong. There is, however, a research done right under the Basilica of St. Peter in Vatican which led to the conclusion that the original basilica built by Constantine the Great was deliberately designed to center on a tomb believed to be that of St. Peter. There is no harm if you read the book and see for yourself if there is a grain of truth about the claim that the bones of St. Peter are directly beneath the high altar of the Basilica. Title of the book is “The Bones of St. Peter”. Reading the book may give us balanced insight. Just click it.
Thanks
Constantino
Gary Estes, what is your “religious” background?
To constantino g. sawan
Having a difficult time finding your last post comment towards me concerning “traditions”. Someone else had a good reply here when he/ she referred to Yeshua reprimanding the Pharisees for their traditions that voided the Word of God. I find I cannot rely on those men and the councils you quoted, too much research (a good thing however) leads me to that conclusion. Over 7 years ago Yeshua led me back to Abba God and questioned me about the “traditions” that led me away from Abba, that’s when I made the sola scripture only stance. Many of those Protestant tradition (as I was raised) I found to be unscriptural. I am also aware that the “reformers” retained some 90-95% of the Catholic Doctrines they claimed they wanted to leave. Not much real difference between those two religions. I walk by faith, not by religion.
Shalom aleikhem, may the love of Messiah fill you each day.
Kalev states, “I find I cannot rely on those men and the councils you [Constantino] quoted, too much research… leads me to that conclusion… I made the sola scripture [my] only stance.” I guess you missed the point: those regional councils he mentioned were the ones that DEFINED “Sola Scriptura” for the New Testament. They are the ones that, inspired by the Holy Spirit, decided which books were cannonical, and which were apocryphal. That is a historical fact. So no, the New Testament did not fall from the sky, nor was it written by the finger of God, nor did God provide us with an index. “Sola Scriptura” is based on a series of books chosen with divine inspiration, albeit by human hands. In accepting the New Testament as infallible, you are accepting as infallible the decisions made by these councils! :-o So much for not being able to rely on these councils…
By the way, please tell me where in Scripture does it say that Scripture ALONE is the sole infallible authority for God’s Word? Which of the early Christians/Apostles said this?
In Acts 15:19, Peter settles the first internal church dispute, regarding Gentiles requiring circumcision, stating, “it is MY judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles…” (my emphasis) Did he not make a decision based on his own judgment, vs. from Scripture “alone”? Thus, couldn’t the issue of no longer requiring circumcision be interpreted as an Apostle’s Tradition, as at the time it was a teaching not based on Scripture alone? Yet as part of Acts, this later became Scripture, so it’s OK, right? But what about other such decisions which were undoubtedly made, and were only taught orally, do they carry any less weight than this?
Jesus spoke in Matthew 15:3 about how the Pharisees broke God’s command for the sake of THEIR traditions (which went against the Word of God). Yet somehow you bend statements like this to include ALL traditions? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Tell me where in the Bible is this concept expressly stated? How about the traditions you yourself are imposing on Scripture: believing Peter could only bind/loose certain things, that Christ rose from the dead “earlier” than Scripture says, or that observing the Sabbath is necessary for salvation. These are your own presuppositions, your own “traditions.” That’s the problem with reading Scripture in isolation from tradition: you can end up consciously or unconsciously misinterpreting it however you see fit, as there is nothing to counterbalance your personal assertions.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Irinaeus, “Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures, as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles …is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).
Dear Kalev,
I think you are confusing traditions of the Pharisees with the Tradition of the Apostles. If the traditions of the Pharisees voided the Word of God, the Tradition of the Apostles, confirmed and guarded the Word of God to the extent that many Christians shed their blood for it.. It is not logical to lump the two different “traditions” into one just because they sound like “tradition”. It’s fallacy to do do, thus, untruth. Aren’t we looking for truth?
Constantino
Constantino,
Apropos “I think you are confusing traditions of the Pharisees with the Tradition of the Apostles”:
Likewise you are conflating the witness of the Apostles with the tradition of the Church Fathers – not the same thing in my book. The reason why the canon of the Protestant New Testament contains only the books that it does is because they are directly connected with the Age of the Apostles, even the letter to the Hebrews which I firmly believe was written by Paul, and when that age closes, the canon of the Scriptures closes too. There is just no way that I see the traditions of the later church fathers carrying the same authority as the witness of the apostles.
I kindly disagree with your belief that Hebrews was written by Paul. More likely Barnabas or Apollos. Paul always spoke of getting his words directly from Yeshua, whereas the author of Hebrews never writes in this way. And the tempo of the text of Hebrews isn’t like the tempo (or cadence) of Pauls known epistles.
Hi Kalev,
Interesting view you put forward. Let me state at the outset that neither of us really ‘know’ who wrote the letter to the Hebrews. That is why I stated that I firmly believe he wrote it, based mainly on statements/phrases I associate with Paul such as:
1. “…and let us run … the race that is set before us.” (Heb.12:1)
2. The reference to Timothy in Chapter 13:23
3. The fact that greetings were sent by “those from Italy” in Heb 13:24
Not much evidence I admit, but it still competes to some extent with the evidence you put forward. But I am not averse to accepting your proposal that somebody very closely associated with Paul like Barnabas or Apollos wrote it, explaining those typical ‘Pauline phrases’ I mention, but then again, we have no known bona fide letters from either of them to compare it with. Admittedly some typical Pauline features are missing such as the doxology but that may be due to him writing to a different (ie. Jewish as opposed to a gentile) audience.
However, for the purposes of my dispute with Constantino I do find your suggestion acceptable in that the epistle was therefore written well within the Apostolic Era and therefore subject to their approval and scrutiny and therefore not undermining my premise. It also supports the premise (closely aligned to yours which states that ‘all the Apostles were Jewish’) that all the New Testament authors were Jewish. From these two premises follows the inference that all of the New Testament was either written by persons who knew Jesus personally and directly witnessed His actions, or by persons whose writings were subject to the scrutiny and approval of direct witnesses/Apostles. I still maintain that with the death of the last apostle the canon of Scripture firmly closes, hence the validity of Protestant position of sola scriptura.
Regards,
Willem
“…with the death of the last apostle the canon of Scripture firmly closes, hence the validity of Protestant position of sola scriptura.”
Except that nowhere does Scripture say that “Scripture alone” is the end-all be-all of God’s Word. And if Scripture doesn’t say it, it shouldn’t be true, eh? Thus, “Scripture alone” is refuted, well, by Scritpure! :-D
“There is just no way that I see the traditions of the later church fathers carrying the same authority as the witness of the apostles.” The later Church Fathers were all Gentiles as opposed to the Apostles being all Jewish. A thorough search of history would reveal the anti-semitic minds of the Church fathers and that led to heretical practices allowed (elements of Mithraism) in the early Church around 325 CE and later.
Dear Willem,
I quote this from the post of Catholic Answers:
“Is Scriptures the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic traditions. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2) and he commands the Thessalonians, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth of by letter.” (2Thes 2:15) He even goes so further to order, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2Thes. 3:6) To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2Tim. 2:2) In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession. . . The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously. . .”
The early Church Fathers were the links to the apostles. I would say then that witness of the apostles and traditions of the apostles are one and the same thing.
Those who say that Tradition of the Apostles is not necessary to the christian faith are simply the people who do not want to recognize the Roman Catholic Church as the real original Church founded by Jesus Christ so that when they see in the scriptures anything that may sound unscriptural, they blow it out of proportion, speciously, to prove that the Church is wrong so that they can prove that their group is the legit one.
Hope this explains.
Constantino
Dear Constantino,
I is evident that you give preference to those translations that translate the word paradosis as ‘tradition/s’ while disregarding those that give preference to translating it variously as ‘ordinances’ or ‘teachings’ or ‘precepts.’
I also cannot help but notice that you (perhaps conveniently) leave out the reference to paradosis in Col.2:8 “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition [paradosis] of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Paul was clearly instructing his followers not to follow just any old paradosis, but only the one that is ‘after Christ.’ The chain of ‘tradition’ he is advocating, if a tradition it could be called, seems to be a very short one: Christ —> Paul —> Us.
But even if I go along with your preference for the word ‘tradition’ one must view Paul’s statement in context: Paul was the apostle that wasn’t a direct witness to the pre-resurrection life of Christ. Therefor he had to rely on the teachings (paradosis of his fellow apostles for that and that was the ‘tradition’ (paradosis) that he was passing along to his followers.
Paul was also very specific about what the nature of the paradosis was that he was passing along to his followers: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. ” (Italics mine)
…and…
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”-the
But Paul was also a witness in his own right: he had a direct encounter with the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus and later infers that he had an ‘out-of-body/in-the-body experience of being ‘caught up in the third heaven.’ He also states that ‘…when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter [ostensibly to ‘compare notes’, to see if the gospel he received and was about to preach harmonized with those of the other apostles], and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. [ie. he received no paradosis other than that mentioned above] Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.’ So Paul was both passing on a ‘tradition,’ albeit a very short one, and a direct witness, both under the direct scrutiny of his fellow apostle Peter and also James. Peter himself implies that he endorses Paul’s teachings, writings and ministry in 2 Peter 3:15. The same cannot be said of the ‘tradition of the Early Church Fathers.’
I also one to point out a few other flaws in your argument. Your quote from Catholic answers starts off with ‘Is Scriptures the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible.’ Well, that is rather self-contradictory, isn’t it? It appears to utilize the sole authority of the Bible in order to negate the sole authority of the Bible.
‘While we must guard against against merely human tradition’ – it doesn’t tell us by what mechanism/guideline we are supposed to be doing that. I suggest the principle of sola scriptura.
‘the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic traditions.’ – Well, as I have amply demonstrated, there is a HUGE difference between ‘apostolic traditions (paradosis/witness)’ and the traditions of of the Early Church Fathers.
‘Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2Tim. 2:2)’ – To infer from this passage a reference to ‘the first four generations of apostolic succession’ is stretching its interpretation a tad too far isn’t it? Why specifically four anyway? Why not two, three or fifteen?
‘The early Church Fathers, who … guarded them [the traditions of the apostles] scrupulously.’ Aaah, but here we’re back to the paradosis of the first apostles being guarded scrupulously by the early apostles against what/whom? The contamination/dilution of said paradosis by those who try to add to it. Sola scriptura, sola scriptura all the way brother.
‘The early Church Fathers were the links to the apostles. I would say then that witness of the apostles and traditions of the apostles are one and the same thing.’ I am with you all the way here, provided that we do not conflate the witness/tradition of the Apostles with that of the Early Church Fathers. Sola scriptura, sola scriptura…
‘Those who say that Tradition of the Apostles is not necessary to the christian faith are simply the people who do not want to recognize the Roman Catholic Church as the real original Church founded by Jesus Christ so that when they see in the scriptures anything that may sound unscriptural, they blow it out of proportion, speciously, to prove that the Church is wrong so that they can prove that their group is the legit one.’ Well, apart from conflating the paradosis/witness of the Apostles with the tradition/s of the Early Church Fathers for the umpteenth time, the counter accusation could be made that those who want to place the tradition of the Early Church Fathers on the same level as the Apostles of the New Testament era, are doing it because they want to usurp the control and rulership over men and their souls from Christ, to whom they solely belong, and place it in subjection to themselves. Little wonder that soon after that pernicious doctrine caught on in the early church, it became a harlot in cahoots with the political powers of the Rome of its day.
May I also add, in response to statements made in an earlier post of yours harping on the issue of ‘unity.’ One must distinguish between unity in the flesh and unity in the Spirit. The one thing you seem to misunderstand about the numerous Protestant and Charismatic denominations is that they often exist apart from each other, not because of doctrinal differences, but because they do not see each other as being part of one hierarchical Papal authority. What keeps them apart is often their peculiar sub-culture and the ‘traditions of the old people/fathers’ that you seem to find so appealing. That is precisely why I am against denominationalism per se. Personally I prefer to attend a small ‘house church’ of preferably no more than 25 people in the area where I live, who, like me, take the responsibility to acquaint and avail themselves of the content of the Scriptures first hand, instead of lazily depending on secondhand regurgitations thereof by self-proclaimed ‘teachers’, ‘bishops’, ‘apostles’, ‘popes’, ‘prophets’ or whatever such usurpers of the direct rulership of Christ in our lives choose to call themselves. Now, as I move from ‘house church’ to ‘house church’ I do find that each has its own culture, doctrinal emphasis, atmosphere and ‘flavour,’ but that is partly due to cultural difference, difference in temperament between the leading figures within the group, and the fact that nobody has the ‘truth’ or the ‘Light’ in full. All of us, including you and the pope, only know the Scriptures and the Truth in part, not in full, and benefits from the mutual input from the various parts of the Body of Christ that, as Paul explains, ‘builds itself up.’
I find it significant that the area in the world where Christianity is currently exhibiting the most vitality and which is growing the fastest – China – the largest part of that growth can be ascribed to the underground house church movement which resembles very closely the kind of church structure I advocate. (see http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/101east/2011/06/2011629646319175.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial5&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=MasterAccount&utm_term=tweets)
“For all things are yours, whether it is Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” (1Co 3:22-23)
Regards,
Willem
Shalom Kalev, You are indeed a true believer and very wise in not following the Traditions of men but in being a follower of Yeshua.I was Stunned recently in discovering That Peters Bones were found in 1953 in Jerusalem. Even more amazingly in a Franciscan Monastery on the Mount Of Olives called Dominus Flevit. They were found in a ossuarie(stone box)within twelve feet of other ossuaries containing the bones of Mary,Martha and their brother Lazarus.On the box containing Peters bones clearly written in Aramaic……Simon Bar-Jo’nah. This was confirmed by the two priests in charge of the site who later in 1958 published a booklet entitled …..Gli Slavi Del Dominus Flevit…..the two priests being Bagatti and Milik. This information for obvious reasons was surpressed by the Vatican. it would indeed appear Peter was never in Rome according to Paul Peter was an Apostle to the Jews and Paul himself an Apostle to the Gentiles…….Regards Thanking for Your Kind Attention……John Foley
Interesting, I need to research this. Can you give me an assist with more info?
Shalom Kalev, all the information You will need, details, photos etc……….can be found by inserting………..” Saint Peter’s Jerusalem Tomb “…… in a Google Search Box and clicking Search Kindest Regards……..John Foley
Dear John,
It may also help us settle the issue of St. Peter’s bones if you read the book, The Bones of St.Peter written by your namesake John Evangelist Walsh. Just click the title.
The book contradicts the finds you mentioned.
It may also help to ask why would Constantine the Great move millions of tons of earth to fill and cover a necropolis in order to build a chapel over a tomb?
Constantino
Dear John,
Interesting how you state to be “stunned” at apparently finding new “evidence” that Peter was never in Rome, evidence that was somehow “suppressed” by the Catholic Church – yes, so well suppressed that Bagatti’s claims even appear in Wikipedia… I’m sorry to say, but this post says more about having a bias against the Catholic Church than about “new” archaeological finds. Claims that Peter was never in Rome -often made by Protestants attempting to delegitimse/discredit the Church- have been around for centuries. Yet the historical record against this assertion is overwhelming -starting with Peter himself, who ends his first epistle “from Babylon” (contemporary code for Rome, as seen in Revelations -or do you really think Peter was in Babylon, which at the time had been in ruins for centuries?), to the 2nd century writings by Origen, Irinaeus, Tertulian, and Dionysius of Corinth, all which place Peter in Rome. Pope Anacletus (ca. 79-92 AD) mentions a “sepulchral monument” built over Peter’s tomb. For over a thousand years, despite testy relations with other cities, no other city claimed to be the resting place of this, the greatest of the Apostles -because none could! As one scholar stated, “to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind.”
Insofar as Bagatti’s clains, you are correct in saying he found 1st century sarcophgi, one bearing the inscription “simon son of Jonah.” But you fail to mention that, among other inscribed names, he found the name Jesus. Obviously this is someone else named Jesus. If Bagetti’s Jesus is not Christ, why must Bagetti’s Simon be Peter? And why would Peter, named so by Christ and refered to as Peter from then on, be buried by Christians as “Simon”? Why would the tomb of one of the greatest apostles lie forgotten by the Jerusalem community?
Finally, this flimsy assertion flies in the face of nearly 30 years of archaelogical work, much done by Margherita Guarducci, under the Vatican. Her work showed how early christians came to the Vatican hill -then a cemetary- to venerate the tomb of a man who died in his 60s. In fact, many early christians were buried as close as possible to this man’s tomb, which happens to be directly beneath the main altar of the succeding churches built on this location. A wall next to the tomb is covered in a typical early christian shorthand graffiti, where the letters PET or PT etc appear over 20 times, and a Greek inscription is believed to say “Petr(os) en(i),” or “Peter lies within.”
Whether or not the bones found within were truly Peter’s, as Pope Pius VI proclaimed in 1968, I cannot say. But the evidence is compelling that Peter went to Rome, was martyred there, and was buried at or near the spot under the Vatican’s main altar.
So you be the judge. Of course, you can deny the historical/archaelogical evidence, and believe that, in the middle of a chance Jerusalem construction dig a monk got lucky and found THE tomb of Peter (now reverted to Paul), despite any further proof than a name on a sarcophagus. But to do this really is to let bias override reason.
Oh, sorry, the last part should read, “…THE tomb of Peter (now reverted to Simon)…” :-)
Hi, Cristian Tampe, in reply to Your comments………firstly in an effort to ascertain the Truth the subject must be approached with an open mind……..Free from all the trappings of organised religion St. Francis of Assisi nearly achieved this likewise St John of the Cross but Joan Of Arc did Achieve it. Yeshua came to set us free………… so let us examine the facts using the freedom He bestowed upon us.
According to the facts concerning Saint Peter it is clearly established in Pauls letter to the Galations……..(new King James version)chapter 2:7-8 that God committed Peter to preach the Gospel to the Jews and committed Paul to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. The time frame presented by the Catholic Church that Peter lived to be 65 does not fit into the table of events as portrayed in the New Testament and in fact Peter appears to be in The Holy Land over the entire period……….Through another avenue it could be argued that Peter lived to be 80 or 82 and if the reference to Babylon Quoted in one of his letters meant that he had in fact been to Rome, it would have been be Preach the Gospel to a sizable colony of Jews who had established themselves there………..Thanking You for Your Kind Attention……..Regards…….John Foley
Dear John,
I disagree. God did not commit Peter to preach *exclusively* to the Jews and Paul to Gentiles. Jesus made no such restriction when he told Peter and the other 10, “go and make disciples of ALL nations,” (Matt 28:19, my emphasis), nor when telling Ananias that Paul was to carry His name “before the Gentiles and their kings AND before the people of Israel.” (Acts 9:15, my emphasis). In Acts we see Peter baptizing Cornelius and all his family, and we see Paul on several occasions preaching to Jews (e.g. see Acts 14:1 “…Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number Jews and Gentiles believed”). To claim that Peter could not have been in Rome because he usually *only* preached to Jews, or that if in Rome he would not have preached with Paul because Paul usually *only* preached to Gentiles, is incorrect. Even if, for argument’s sake, Peter truly restricted his teachings to Jews only, they could have both still been evangelizing Rome together, with Peter preaching to the sizeable Jewish community, and Paul to the Gentiles.
We do not have the complete collection of Peter or Paul’s letters, so will never know with certitude what they were thinking, particularly as they became older. As details here are sketchy, it is of particular use to see what historians, especially early Christian writers, declared. about these two. Historical writings overwhelmingly support the view that Peter was in Rome at the end of his life. Clement of Rome (d A.D. 97) wrote that Peter and Paul were martyred together at Rome. In his “Letter to the Corinthians” (ca AD 70) he refers to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his. And lest critics object that this tradition was begun by the Roman church to bolster its position, note that this statement came from a man who died probably before the apostle John – long before “Roman Catholicism.” Also, Ignatius of Antioch, in his “Letter to the Romans” (AD 110) remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, a comment which only makes sense if Peter had been at least one of the leaders of the church in Rome.
Here’s a smattering of actual quotes:
“You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)
“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).
“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).
“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).
“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).
“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).
“When Nero was already reigning [Nero reigned from 54–68], Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.” Lactantius, The Death of the Persecutors (ca. AD 318)
“Peter…coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).
“This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome…Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right…For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).
“And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, ‘Ye must bear witness at Rome,’ deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing…” Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).
In terms of archaeological findings, I’ll concede that the evidence uncovered under the Vatican is circumstantial at best. But it is corroborated by historical writings. Baggatti’s evidence is even more circumstantial, and as far as I know, is not corroborated by ANY early Christian writer -yet you seem to readily accept it. Why? That’s not keeping an open mind, but rather willingly ignoring the weight of evidence, and buying into what is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. Why?
Let’s, for argument’s sake, consider the possibility that Peter did not go to Rome, and did not perish there. Why would Peter end his first epistle “from Babylon”? The real Babylon at the time was a pile of rubble, so what did that mean? What other meaning, besides Jewish code for Rome, could Babylon possibly have? Can you explain me that? And why would multiple early Christian writers attest to Peter being in Rome? Are you saying these individuals, who lived in separate locations, all believed or fabricated the same lie? Why is it that not a single early Christian writer attests to Peter dying anywhere else? Why would no other early Christian community claim as its own -with pride and joy- the final resting place of this mighty Apostle? At the time his bones would surely have been prized as sacred relics! How could the Jerusalem community, which knew firsthand the mighty role Peter played, bury him under the name “Simon,” and forget about him? Sorry, John, but no matter how hard you try, the shoe just doesn’t fit.
To have an open mind is good. But don’t use that as an excuse to blatantly ignore substantial evidence in order to justify your own presuppositions. You are only deceiving yourself.
Erratum! In my above rant, I meant to say Babylon was early Christian code -not Jewish code- for Rome. Sorry! :-D
I hope this finally settles the “Simon Bar Jonah” ossuary controversy:
Fr. Bagatti’s interpretation of the first word in the ossuary’s inscription, Simon, is commonly accepted. But his claim that the patronym, the last word of the inscription, read “YWNH,” or Jonah, has been seriously put to doubt.. Even J.T. Milik, the editor to Bagatti’s 1958 book, Dominus Flevit, was uncertain as to whether this was really so, and suggested other possible alternatives:
“The reading of the patronym, as luck would have it, is not sure. The reading proposed… (YWNH) remains possible, but other possibilities for it can equally be proposed, such as ZYNH corresponding to Zena… Alternatively, [the] last two letters can be considered as a single one… In this case it would have to be read ZYH, ZWH, etc.” (Dominus Flevit, p. 83.)
In 2007, Professor Stephen Pfann, Dead Sea Scroll expert and President of the University of the Holy Land, re-examined the inscription. He found Bagatti’s reading to be mistaken, stating that in reading the patronym, “not a single letter was read correctly.”
“The patronym, based on Seleucid Aramaic script, should then be read as ‘ZYLA’ and the full inscription as ‘SHM‘WN BR ZYLA,’ ‘Shimon Bar Zilla.’ However, photos indicate some surface erosion exists to the left of the alef, which may allow for another letter, for example a yod, which would yield the reading SHM’WN BR ZYLA’[I], that is, ‘Simon Barzilla(i).'”
As it turns out Barzillai is a prominent Jewish family with deep Biblical roots, mentioned in Samuel, Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. This family still exists today.
Further details, including a technical explanation as to how Dr. Pfann arrived at his conclusions, can be found here: http://www.uhl.ac/Lost_Tomb/ShimonBarzillai/
Whether it read “Simon Bar Zilla” or “Simon Barzillai,” Dr. Pfann leaves one thing clear: “This new reading does, of course, exclude ‘Simon Bar Jonah’ as a reading for this ossuary inscription, and returns the discussion of the potential location of Simon Peter’s bones back to their traditional place, Rome.”
There is abundant archaeological and historical evidence pointing to Peter’s Rome sojourn. The onus befalls on those who do not accept this to prove otherwise. The assertions of this prominent antiquities expert cast serious doubt on the sole piece of concrete evidence brought forth to “prove” Peter died in Jerusalem.
John Foley’s post is very interesting. But then what happens to the first Pope of Roman Catholic church whose remains are said to be in Vatican.?
What a complete, utter waste of time, this petty bickering about the “truth”. The Truth is a Person, not a denomination, not a doctrine. You can memorize the Catholic Encylopedia or, if you are Protestant, learn to quote the Bible backwards while hanging upside down in the dark. You know ABOUT Jesus, but do you KNOW Jesus?
“Lord, Lord, have we not cast out demons in your name…?”
You read the words, you hear the pompous pontifications at Mass, but
CAN YOU HEAR THE MUSIC???
without it you are lost, no matter how many bible verses you can quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06khEqzGEsc
Dear All,
I wish to share with you a Message from Jesus Christ through an Orthodox Visionary, Ms. Vassula Ryden given recently, May 5, 2011. First, may I inform you that Ms. Ryden have been receiving messages from Heaven since 1985 and these messages have been compiled into books, True Life in God, and translated in about 40 languages. Jesus counsels those who read the book to change the name Vassula to his/her name because his messages is given to all mankind. Here is the message:
“..tell My people and remind them that: love covers over many sins; let your love for each other be proven to be true….allow Me to refresh your memories: it is a blessing for you when they insult you and persecute you for My Sake because it proves that I, God, am resting on you… if your were only to please men I would not have called you; if you were to work hard for your interests and glory and not Mine, I would have turned My Eyes away from you;
open wide your hearts and receive Me; be united, helping one another and try to console My people in these times; the love of your neighbor should be your main concern;
remember to proclaim My Message far and wide for the smell of death has reached heaven and the punishment that awaits this generation will be drawn upon the earth because of its incredulity and its apostasy; the envoys I am sending you are not heard and My Spirit is blasphemed; many are recklessly injuring My Church, stoning My prophets; many are decaying and now visible signs are given in proportion and weight of their apostasy and their sins;
hardship and distress are upon this faithless generation; these are signs given already to them because of their refusal to reconcile with Me;
I have justified many of you before my Father, however, I want a return of love, a return of faithfulness; I have revealed to you how I work, and what I am in search of; I have shown to you the purpose of My calling; you have stamped your seal giving Me great honor, can one deny what one believes? Keep alive in your heart what you were taught in the beginning and refuse to sell My Blood; I give you my peace telling you: do not fear for I am with you; bear My Name and honor Me; ic”
In previous messages, Jesus Christ was asking the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Orthodox to unite under one tabernacle.
For your perusal.
Thank you.
Constantino