"From this same Catholic Church you have accepted your Sunday, and that Sunday, as the Lord's day, she has handed down as a tradition. and the entire Protestant world has accepted it as tradition. for you have not an iota of Scripture to establish it. Therefore, your Sunday you have accepted on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church." D. B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, p. 179
From: Timothy.Poe@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Timothy Poe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Message-ID:
Date: 10 Apr 93 01:03:59 GMT
"...They (Protestants) observe as the day of rest not the seventh day of the week commanded by the Bible, but the first day, which we know is to be kept holy, only from the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church." Henry Gibson, Catechism Made Easy, vol. 1, p. 342
"I have repeatedly offered ,000 to anyone who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is a law of the holy Catholic Church alone." Thomas Enright, a lecture at Hartford, Kansas, Feb. 18, 1889
"Which church does the whole civilized world obey? Protestants...by their solemn act of keeping Sunday acknowledge our power and obey our church instead of the Bible. The Bible says: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,' but the Catholic Church says, 'no, keep the first day of the week' and all the world bows down in silent obedience to the mandates of the Catholic Church " Thomas Enright, Workers' Bulletin, September 17, 1889
"Of course Father Enright is correct. There is not a word in the New Testament about Christ's changing the day. On the contrary, He always observed the Sabbath, the seventh day...The church alone is authority for the transfer from Saturday to Sunday."
Ign. F. Hoostman, letter for Archbishop Ryan, Philadelphia
"...with the exception of seventh day keepers, all Protestant denominations keep the Sunday instead of the Sabbath day, because the Catholic Church made this change in the first ages of Chritianity." A. Gerritsma, Winnipeg Free Press, April 21, 1910
"What are we commanded by the third commandment? By the third commandment we are commanded to keep holy the Lord's day. Are the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same? The Sabbath day and the Sunday are not the same. The Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week, and is the day which was kept holy in the old law the Sunday is the first day of the week, and is the day which is kept holy in the new law...the Church commands us to keep the Sunday..."
Third Council of Baltimore, A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, p. 65
"What are we commanded by the third commandment? By the third commandment we are commanded to keep the Sunday holy. The Jews' Sabbath Day was the Saturday we Christians keep the Sunday holy. The Church, by the power our Lord gave her, changed the observance of the Saturday to the Sunday." H. Canon Cafferata, The Catechism Simply Explained, p. 89
"The Divine institution of a day of rest from ordinary occupations and of religious worship, transferred by the authority of the (Catholic) Church from the Sabbath, the last day, to Sunday the first day of the week,...is one of the most patent signs that we are a Christian people." James Cardinal Gibbons. The Cross and the Flag, pp. 24-25
"If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the sabbath Day. In keeping Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church." Albert Smith, letter for James Cardinal Gibbons, Feb. 10, 1920
"The (Catholic) Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the Bible to be the only guide of faith, has no warrent for observing Sunday." Catholic University Bulletin August 14, 1942.
From: Timothy.Poe@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Timothy Poe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.bible-study Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
Message-ID:
Date: 12 Apr 93 13:29:03 GMT
References:
>From: conrad@xenon.stanford.edu (Conrad Yoder)
>Subject: Re: Sabbath Admissions 5of5
>Date: 10 Apr 93 23:55:09 GMT
>Umm... so what is your point? Posting everyone's opinions but yours
>doesn't tell me anything.
Actually the point was in the quotes. That most major christian sects know that the keeping of Sunday is not Biblical in nature and there is no command for it in the scriptures.
>The Sabbath has not been moved. It is still just as it always was - on the
>last day of the week. Also, the Sabbath is, as it has always been, a Jewish
>holiday, not a Christian one. We (Christians) do not celebrate the Sabbath.
Actually I am a christian too and I observe the 7th day Sabbath and there are many other Christian groups that celebrate the Sabbath instead of Sunday.
>The Christians in the early church began meeting on Sunday (i.e. the first
>day of the week). This is documented in Acts 20:7 NIV: "On the first day
>of the week we came together to break bread." (Luke speaking of he and Paul)
Actually this does not say what you claim. If you notice in verse 6 it refers to Paul and his companions remaining in Philippi until "after the Days of Unleavened Bread". Why would they remain there if they were not keeping these Holy Days? These are of the 'Jewish' Holy Days outlined in Leviticus 23. In verse 7 the bible says that they came together "to break bread". The Bible treats this throughout not as a worship service but as a common meal.
Notice also that this took place in the evening and not in the morning or during the day.
On a tangential issue, There is nothing wrong with worshipping on any day of the week, however worshipping on the 7th day Sabbath was not changed by them.
>also mentioned in Rev. 1:10 NIV: "On the Lord's Day, I was in the Spirit, and
>I heard a loud voice behind me like a trumpet, ..." The notes of the Study
>Bible I am using (Zondervan NIV) mention re: Rev. 1:10, "the Lord's Day: a
>technical term for the first day of the week--so named because Jesus rose
>from
There is no mention of the first day of the week in this verse. Throughout Revelation and the OT scriptures we see references to the "Day of the Lord" which is a prophetic time of God's wrath. This is actually a fascinating phrase study to perform. Nowhere in scripture does it state that the Day of Lord or the Lord's Day is a specific day of the week. In fact we read in Mark 2:28 that Jesus is the "Lord of the Sabbath." so by your logic the Sabbath would be the Lord's Day. Zondervan is correct in saying that the Lord's day has usage as the first day of the week, but this is because of modern christian convention and not because of scriptural usage.
>technical term for the first day of the week--so named because Jesus rose
>from the dead on that day. It was also the day that Christians met
>(see Acts 20:7)
Actually this is not what the scripture says. In John 20:1 and the parrallel acounts in Matt, Mark and Luke, we see that on the morning of the first day of the week when it was still dark, Jesus was already risen from the dead.
Jesus himself said he would be in the tomb 3 days and 3 nights. Since he was buried in the early evening he had to have risen in the early evening.
>and took up collections (see 1 Cor. 16:2)."
The verse does not mention this as being a worship service or any service.
It was also to be done after Paul arrived and not during a service Paul was holding. What were they doing then? They were as vs. 1-3 show, collecting stuff for the poor at Jerusalem; Foodstuffs and other things on the first day of the week a workday. When Paul arrived the work had already been done.
>As we can see here, the Catholic church did not make Sunday the new day of
>worship. They may have formalized it, however extremely, but we Christians
>meet on Sunday to commemorate Jesus' victory over the grave, not because of
>what Catholicism said.
They did make Sunday the day of worship. The bishops of the western churches especially at Rome began to see that the pagans had an easy time identifying with Sunday worship because the pagans had been doing it for mellennia. The Church began to keep both days and to keep Easter a pagan holiday also kept for mellinnia by the pagans. This enabled the converts to have a much easier time converting to christianity. The eastern churches objected and insisted on only the Passover and the Sabbath. This laid the ground work for the Council of Laodicea in which it was decided that Christians should not Judaize by keeping the 7th day Sabbath or the Passover. Easter and Sunday replaced these as official worship days for the Catholic Church.
Interestingly enough the christians in the west were placed under the death penalty for the keeping of the Passover and Sabbath. If there was no death penalty for this there would be a great deal more sabbath keepers around today.
>In addition, Jesus came to take away the old law and give us a new one. In
Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
His sacrifice certainly was enough to fulfill the entire debt of sin that was hanging over the heads of all mankind because of transgressions of the decalogue. This debt was what was fulfilled. His sacrifice fullfilled the need for ceremonial/sacrificial offerings and thus the ceremonial/sacrificial law was no longer needed.
>Gal. 3:24-25 NIV: "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we
>might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under
>is invalidated - Jesus preached to uphold important parts of it.
Not quite, Read James 2 NIV
14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith
but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily
food.
16 If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm
and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what
good is it?
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied
by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show
me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what
I do.
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons
believe that-- and shudder.
20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without
deeds is useless? {[20] Some early manuscripts
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what
he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working
together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed
God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," {[23] Gen.
15:6} and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not
by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute
considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to
the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without
deeds is dead.
If you go back and read Gal 3:19 - 4:6 you will see that the same thing is being said as the above is stating. That a person doesn't keep the law to be saved but a person does good deeds (keeps the law) because he is saved.
>Indeed, it is explitictly told us to put these old practices behind us. In
>Col. 2:16 NIV: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or
>drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration, or a
>Sabbath day." Furthermore, Paul exhorts in vv. 20-23: "Since you died with
>Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still
>belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 'Do not handle! Do not taste!
>Do not touch!'? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are
>based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an
>appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility
>and their harsh treatment of the
>body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
The Colossian Heresy is dealt with in the entire book of Colossions, but more specifically in Chapter 2. Most commentaries attribute the above scriptures in the same way that Halley's does. They say that an ascetic group started burdening the Early Christians of the time with strict man-made requirements to the point of asceticism "put forth in high sounding phrases of an assumed superiority; all as the part of the Gospel of Christ" (Halley's Bible Handbook pg 621).
In fact You can read in many historical works about the Essenes and the Gnostics. The Wars of the Jews by Josephus in book 2, chapter 8, paragraphs 2-14 describe the Essene's customs. Josephus admires their customs and is descriptive of them. Including the customs of not 'going to the bathroom' on the Sabbath; not being able to eat food that was not of Essene origin; and many other 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!' requirements.
Therefore the issue of the book of Collossions is not whether or not to keep the Sabbath but that we should not follow the burdensome philosophies of men.
It is interesting that Christ himself dealt with this in Mark 2:23-28 with the Pharisees and gave them the answer:
NIV Mark 2
27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man
for the Sabbath.
He clearly sets a precedent here for what Paul stated in Colossions 2.
The Sabbath was made for man to rest, refresh and allow him to draw closer to his God; not to be a burden but a delight.
NIV Isaiah 58
13. "If you keep your feet from breaking the Sabbath and from
doing as you please on my holy day, if you call the Sabbath a
delight and the LORD's holy day honorable, and if you honor it by
not going your own way and not doing as you please or speaking
idle words,
14 then you will find your joy in the LORD, and I will cause
you to ride on the heights of the land and to feast on the
inheritance of your father Jacob." The mouth of the LORD has
spoken.
It is intresting that if Christ intended Himself to change the Sabbath then He missed a Golden opportunity to state here in Mark 2 and in other places where the Pharisees called him into question and he gave them an answer about the Sabbath.
Also if in Acts we have record of much dispute over the question of circumcision, and the council that remedied that situation, why is there no mention of an official act of changing the Sabbath Day, one of the ten commandments of which circumcision is not? Not only as one of the ten commandments but a memorial since the beginning of this world. Surely a change of this magnitude would have drawn a greater outcry and would have been much more emphatic than the change of circumcision.
Again most reference sources point out that the Sabbath was not changed by Christ or the New Testament Church.
>- The early church, not the Catholic church, began the practice of meeting
> on Sundays, and its purpose is to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.
>- Because we are Christians, we do not celebrate the Sabbath as well as
> other aspects of the old law that has passed away, which has been
> replaced by the new law, that being Jesus.
Reread the Sabbath Admissions and You'll see the points I made above.
That the Sabbath was not changed by the New Testament Church, they in fact kept the Sabbath. This is not meant to be a spiritual debate but an issue of having a correct acedemic view of what the scriptures say.
The Catholic Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday. The protestant churches keep Sunday because they were outgrowths of Catholicism. In fact most protestant churches were trying to create a purified Catholicism. These statements are by no means meant to be inflammatory. Catholics believe as a part of their system that the church has the ecclesiastical authority to change the day of worship, institute new Holy Days, and Papal Infalibility.
That is a fact. I'm also not judging others in what they believe because I believe that it is their responsility to God. I am trying clarifying what the scriptures do indeed say.
::::::::::::::
sanders
::::::::::::::
excerpt from _Jesus and Judaism_, by E.P. Sanders, 1985, ISBN:0-8006-0743-0, pg. 264-269: [CBD, #07430, (503)977-5000, $13.95] Sabbath, handwashing and food:
I shall deal with these points of law, about which Jesus is depicted as coming into direct conflict with the Pharisees, with extreme economy. Some scholars have found in Jesus' supposed violation of the laws of Sabbath and food the clue to the conflict which resulted in his death (as, in fact, is proposed by Mark 3.6). More, though finding here no fatal conflict, have seen these points of law as defining Jesus' conflict with his contemporaries. Opinions range from this extreme all the way to another: there is no direct violation of the law at all, or none worth much attention. In this case, one of the extremes must be judged to be correct: the second one.
I shall not discuss each pericope in detail, and consequently shall make relatively little reference to the special exegetical treatments of them. A fair range of opinions has been given in the Introduction. The position which is taken here can be supported, I think, largely on the grounds of general observations.
Before dealing with the passages, we should make the preliminary observation that the issues of food and Sabbath would loom much larger in churches which contained Gentiles than they would in pre-Christian Judaism. In a Jewish environment, observance of the Sabbath and the consumption of kosher food are largely matters of routine. That food and Sabbath were issues in the Gentile churches is shown by the letters of Paul, where they are the only two items other than circumcision which require special treatment (Gal. 2.11-14; 4.10; Rom. 14.1-6). Thus it is very probably that the issues of food and Sabbath are so prominent in the Gospels because of the importance which they assumed in the church. That is not to say, of course, that it can be proved that Jesus never debated such issues. This is another negative which cannot be proved.
But that they *defined* his relationship to his contemporaries is most unlikely.
We must then note that this means that debates with the Pharisees recede in importance. I am one of a growing number of scholars who doubt that there were any substantial points of opposition between Jesus and the Pharisees (that is, with the Pharisees in particular, as distinct from the rest of Jewish Palestine). Again, a negative cannot be proved. But all the scenes of debate between Jesus and the Pharisees have more than a slight air of artificiality. We consider this question further in the next chapter.
Bultmann and many others have pointed out the unrealistic ('imaginary') character of the scenes. Just *how* incredible many of them are, however, seems not to be realized by many. Harvey, for example, seriously discusses the story narrated in Mark 2.23-26 as representing a real *event* in which Jesus transgressed the law by allowing his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath.
Similarly he seems to think that Pharisees really did go to Galilee in order to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands (Mark 7.2). In the latter case, and also in discussing Mark 2.18, Harvey does not note that it is not Jesus who is said to have been accused, but his disciples. In taking the stories at face value he also seems to deny what he had just accepted as an 'assured result' of form criticism, namely, that the conflict stories were composed in the light of debates between Christianity and Judaism.
The extraordinary unrealistic settings of many of the conflict stories should be realized: Pharisees did not organize themselves into groups to spend their Sabbaths in Galilean cornfields in the hope of catching someone transgressing (Mark 2.23f), nor is it credible that scribes and Pharisees made a special trip to Galilee from Jerusalem to inspect Jesus' disciples' hands (Mark 7.1f). Surely stories such as these should not be read as describing actual debates between Jesus and others.
It may be argued, to be sure, that 'where there is smoke there is fire'; that is, that the accounts of disputes do not *describe* debates between Jesus and the Pharisees, but that they preserve the memory that Jesus fell into conflict with the Pharisees on the law. On the face of it, this is a reasonable, but unprovable proposal. I think that further consideration of the evidence, however, will lead to the conclusion that there was no substantial conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees with regard to Sabbath, food, and purity laws.
Even if we accept all the stories as depicting things that really happened (though with artificially contrived introductions), it must still be noted that there is no actual transgression of the law on the part of Jesus. In the passage on handwashing (Matt. 15.1 || Mark 7.1-23) it is the disciples who are accused. I have been at pains previously to point out that 'handwashing' is not a biblical requirement for the laity. While the *haberim* undertook to observe special purity rules, there is no evidence that they thought that those who did not do so were sinners, and there would certainly be no reason to single out Jesus' disciples for criticism. Jesus and his disciples were obviously not *haberim*, but that put them in the vast majority.
The handwashing dispute, at least in Mark, slides into a discourse on food, which is quite a different matter in Jewish law. The artificiality of the connection is evident. Thus, after the dispute on handwashing, Mark introduces what is clearly a second topic: 'And again calling the crowd he said to them' (Mark 7.14). Which crowd? The one always around Jesus' door? In any case, the topic changes to 'what defiles', and the general point of Jesus' discourse is that a person is defiled not by what goes into his mouth, but by what comes out. Mark (not Matthew) applies this explicity to the food laws (7.19). Even so, there is no indication that Jesus and his disciples did not eat kosher food, although the importance of Mark's comment for churches which included Gentiles is obvious.
The saying in Mark 7.15 ('not what goes in defiles ...') is often taken as the most secure bit of the whole passage, and it is sometimes understood to be a reply to a question like that of Mark 7.5, which concerns handwashing.
That, however, can hardly be the case. 'What goes in' must surely be the food itself - nothing else goes in and comes out -, and the statement does not respond to the question of whether or not Jesus' disciples should become *haberim*, laypeople who accept special purity rules. The point of the saying, in fact, is so clear that the positions of the 'false brethern', Peter and James become impossible to understand if the saying be considered authentic.
It is very likely that the entirety of the pericope on plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matt. 12.1-8 || Mark 2.23-28 || Luke 6.1-5) is a creation of the church. Bultmann long ago observed that the disciples (that is, the church) are criticized, not Jesus, and the passage represents a Christian response to Jewish criticism. If there is a historical kernel, I do not see how it can be recovered, except possibly for the concluding sayings (on which more below.)
The stories of healing on the Sabbath (the Man with the Withered Hand, Matt. 12.9-14 || Mark 3.1-6 || Luke 6.6-11; the Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity, Luke 13.10-17; the Healing of a Woman with Dropsy, Luke 14.1-6) also reveal no instance in which Jesus transgressed the Sabbath law. The matter is quite simple: no work was performed. If Jesus had had to remove a rock which was crushing a man's hand, there would have been a legal principle at issue: was the man's life in danger, or could the work have waited for the sun to set? But the laying on of hands (Luke 13.13) is not work, and no physical action of any kind is reported in the other stories.
It is not impossible that authentic sayings of Jesus have been incorporated in one or more of the stories which we have considered. This has often been proposed for Mark 7.15, but as the saying now stands it can hardly be authentic. As we noted, it must refer to food, and it probably never had any setting outside the church's rejection of the food laws. It is different, however, with the saying that the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12.8 || Mark 2.28 || Luke 6.5). The saying is used in the Gospels to justify transgression of the Sabbath, but if it is older than its current setting it cound not have been intended that way originally. The church took some while to come to the position that the Sabbath need not be kept, and it is hard to think that Jesus explicitly said so. I have no new proposal as to what the saying may have originally meant. The Son of man saying, of course, introduces us into one of the most uncertain aspects of the study of the Gospels, and one which, as far as I can tell, we do not need to enter.
Conclusion:
We have found one instance in which Jesus, in effect, demanded transgression of the law: the demand to the man whose father had died. [Mt8:21f || Lk9:59f] Otherwise the material in the Gospels reveals no transgression by Jesus. And, with the one exception, following him did not entail transgression on the part of his followers. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that he did not consider the Mosaic dispensation to be final or absolutely binding. He spoke of and demonstrated the destruction of the old temple and the coming of the new, he admitted sinners to the kingdom without requiring the lawful signs of repentance, and he issued at least one law for a new order: the prohibition of divorce.
Thus one can understand why scholars speak of Jesus' 'sovereign freedom' over the law. He apparently did not think that it could be freely transgressed, but rather that it was not final.
This attitude almost certainly sprang from his conviction that the new age was at hand. The saying about the temple is completely unambiguous, and we best explain the other points as well by appealing to Jesus' expectation of the eschaton. The prohibition of divorce, as we say, need not have been based entirely on the view that *Endzeit* equals *Urzeit*, but in any case it points to a new order. The kingdom into which the sinners were admitted is, of course, the coming kingdom. It was Jesus' sense of living at the turn of the ages which allowed him to think that the Mosaic law was not final and absolute.
The disciples did not gain the impression that the Mosaic dispensation was valueless and had already passed away. I think that we can rely on Acts as showing that they felt that the temple was a fit place of worship (e.g. Acts 3.1; 21.23-26). They may have thought that it was doomed, but not that it was impure or had already been superseded.
We have again and again returned to the fact that nothing which Jesus said or did which bore on the law led his disciples after his death to disregard it. This great fact, which overrides all others, sets a definite limit to what can be said about Jesus and the law. I wish, however, to call attention to a curious aspect of the fact. Even when we know or have good reason to believe that we have a saying which touches on the law and which goes back to Jesus, we can also tell that the saying did not entirely determine early Christian behaviour and attitude. The saying on divorce is secure and is attested to by Paul - who quotes it, attributes it to the Lord, and proceeds to give his own rules independently. These neither spring from nor totally agree with the saying attributed to 'the Lord' (1Cor. 7.10-16). The saying to let the dead bury the dead seems to have had no repercussion at all. It is unlike anything known from early Christianity, and this helps support its authenticity; but it also means that it was without influence. The Jesus of Matt. 15.4 || Mark 7.10 and of Matt. 19.19 and parr. repeats the commandment to honour father and mother as if it is to be accepted without reservation. If one or other of these sayings, as well as Matt. 8.21f., is authentic, we would have to conclude that one nuances the other: Even though in Matt. 8.21f. Jesus says something which seems clearly to imply disregard of the commandment, his acceptance of it elsewhere shows that this was not his intention. In any case, the disciples did not take the saying in Matt.
8.21f. and par. as permission to disobey the law.
Should we follow this line and conclude that, after all, Jesus may have opposed the law directly in other instances? That possibly he did intend to oppose Sabbath, food and other 'ceremonial' laws, but that the disciples did not get it? I do not think so. These are matters of concrete behaviour which the disciples could not have missed. If we were to suppose that, as in the case of divorce, there were clear traditions about these matters, but that they were disregarded by the apostles, we could not explain why Paul does not even appeal to them. He at least quotes a version of the saying on divorce, even though he does not regard it as a binding precept, and we cannot suppose that he would have failed to refer to traditions about the Sabbath and food which supported his own case.
It is only the action and saying against the temple which had ascertainable results: probably the crucifixion as well as Stephen's speech. We gather, however, that the action was not construed to mean, and probably did not mean, that Jesus objected to the sacrifices instituted by God. Stephen appears to have taken a more negative stance than did Jesus. Jesus himself looked to a new age, and therefore he viewed the institutions of this age as not final, and in that sense not adequate. He was not, however, a reformer. We find no criticism of the law which would allow us to speak of his opposing or rejecting it.
-----
E.P. Sanders is Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis at the University of Oxford, England and Part-Time Professor of Religious Studies at McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
::::::::::::::
seegod
::::::::::::::
No one has seen God ever;
God's only son who has been on his Father's lap, he himself explained that to us. Jn1:18(Gaus)
God is spirit,
and His worshipers must worship in spirit and truth. Jn4:24(Gaus)
God has never yet been seen by anyone, but if we love each other,
God dwells in us and we have His perfect love within us. 1Jn4:12(Gaus)
So if we're of the lineage of God, we shouldn't think that any gold or silver or stone, the impress of human skill and hard thought, is comparable to the divine. To be sure, God overlooks the previous times of ignorance, but now He commands the world - everyone, everywhere - to repent, because He has fixed the day on which He is going to judge the world's population, justly, using the man He ordained, whose credentials He showed to all by raising him from the dead. Acts17:29-31(Gaus)
After all, since the creation of the world, the invisible in Him, including His timeless power and divinity, has been observable to those who examine His creations, which leaves those people with no excuse: knowing God, they did not glorify Him and praise Him as God, but lost themselves in speculation and let the spark go out in their foolish hearts. Saying "we are wise," they took leave of their wits and threw over the glory of God incorruptible for the likeness of a corruptible image: human beings or birds or beasts or serpents.
In return God left them to their filthy behavior, with the drives of their heart, to degrade them physically in their own sight. Some of them threw over the truth of God for lies, honoring and worshiping the created over the Creator (be He blest for all ages indeed). Rm1:20-25(Gaus)
He: who snatched us from the powers of darkness; And put us instead in the kingdom of the Son of His love, From whom comes our redemption and forgiveness of wrongdoing, Who is the image of God the invisible, And firstborn of all creation, Since in him were created all things; In the skies and on the earth, The seen and the unseen, Whether thrones, lordships, sovereignties, or powers: All were created through him, and with him in mind. And he himself is before all things; And all things are contained in him, And he is the head of our assembly's body. He is the beginning, firstborn from among the dead, So that among all persons he might have first place, Because in him all fullness thought it good to dwell, Using his aid to reconcile all things to him, (Peacemaker through the blood he shed upon the cross), Yes, all things, whether upon the earth or in the skies. Col1:13-20(Gaus)
To the King of the ages, imperishable, unseen, unique God, be honor and glory forever and ever, let it be so. 1Tim1:17(Gaus)
One God, And one mediator between God and humankind, The human Christ Jesus, Who gave himself as a ransom for all, Bearing witness at the chosen moment. 1Tim2:5-6(Gaus)
I charge you by God, the Lifegiver to all things, and by Christ Jesus, who swore out so noble a deposition before Pontius Pilate, to keep the command- ment and be spotless and irreproachable till the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ, which will be shown to us in His own time by: The blessed and sole Potentate, The King of all who are kings; And Lord of all who are lords, The sole Possessor of immortality, Housed in light to which there is no approach, Whom no human being has seen or ever could, His is the honor and ruling power forever indeed. 1Tim6:13-16(Gaus)
Faith is what made him leave Egypt behind, not fearing the wrath of the king: he persisted in "seeing" the invisible. Heb11:27(Gaus)
Don't be fooled, my beloved brothers and sisters. Every good giving and every perfect gift is descended from above, from the Father of Lights, for whom there is no changing of phases or cycles of darkening. James1:16-17(Gaus)
I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage: You shall have no other gods besides Me. You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I the LORD your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me, but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments. Ex20:2-6(JPS)
So the people remained at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was. Ex20:18(JPS) [20:21(KJV)]
But," He said, "you cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live." Ex33:20(JPS)
God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? Num 23:19 (NRSV)
You came forward and stood at the foot of the mountain. The mountain was ablaze with flames to the very skies, dark with densest clouds. Dt4:11(JPS)
For your own sake, therefore, be most careful - since you saw no shape when the LORD your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire - not to act wickedly and make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness whatever: the form of a man or a woman, the form of any beast on earth, the form of any winged bird that flies in the sky, the form of anything that creeps on the ground, the form of any fish that is in the waters below the earth. And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them.
These the LORD your God allotted to other peoples everywhere under heaven; but you the LORD took and brought out of Egypt, that iron blast furnace, to be His very own people, as is now the case. Dt4:15-20(JPS)
The LORD spoke those words - those and no more - to your whole congregation at the mountain, with a mighty voice out of the fire and the dense clouds.
Dt5:19(JPS) [5:22(KJV)]
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. Dt6:4(JPS)
And Samuel said to him, "The LORD has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you and has given it to another who is worthier than you. Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not deceive or change His mind, for He is not human that He should change His mind." 1Sam15:28-29 (JPS) -then Solomon declared: "The LORD has chosen; To abide in a thick cloud: 1K8:12(JPS)
I will not act on My wrath, Will not turn to destroy Ephraim. For I am God, not man, The Holy One in your midst: I will not come in fury. Hos11:9(JPS)
He made darkness His screen; dark thunderheads, dense clouds of the sky were His pavilion round about Him. Ps18:12(JPS) [18:11(KJV)]
Dense clouds are around Him, righteousness and justice are the base of His throne. Ps97:2(JPS)
He passes me by - I do not see Him; He goes by me, but I do not perceive Him. Job9:11(JPS)
He is not a man, like me, that I can answer Him, That we can go to law together. Job9:32(JPS)
But if I go East - He is not there; West - I still do not perceive Him; North - since He is concealed, I do not behold Him; South - He is hidden, and I cannot see Him. Job23:8-9(JPS)
::::::::::::::
septuagint
::::::::::::::
Excerpt from Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, ISBN:0-385-19363-7, v. 5, *Septuagint* by Melvin K.H. Peters of Duke University, pg. 1097:
More representative of the mainstream of comtemporary scholarship is the theory of LXX origins identified with Paul de Lagarde and the Gottingen school. This *Urtext* theory as it is sometimes called, suggests that all mss of LXX can ultimately be traced to one prototype. In order to achieve this, Lagarde theorized that one needed first of all to attempt to reconstruct the original forms of each of the three main recensions of LXX - the Origenian, the Lucianic and the Hesychian - and from them to work back to the *Urtext*. No one, not even Lagarde himself, succeeded in the reconstruction of the *Urtext* conceived in this way.
The recension of Hesychius has never been indentified with any certainty and much controversy surrounds the Lucianic text. However the basic idea of an original translation for each of the books of the LXX is accepted by the vast majority of Septuagintalists and constitutes the working hypothesis of the Gottingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen - the only active institute involved in the preparation of LXX texts.
::::::::::::::
torah
::::::::::::::
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. Impress them upon your children. Recite them when you stay at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up. Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead; inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates. Dt6:4-9(JPS)
You shall be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy. Lv19:2b(JPS)
The Great Commandment:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Lev19:18b(RSV)
The Ten Commandments: Ex20ff
Hillel's (30BCE-9CE) Golden Rule:
Do not unto others what you would not have done unto you.
A psalm of David: Ps15(JPS)
LORD, who may sojourn in Your tent, who may dwell on Your holy mountain?
He who lives without blame, who does what is right, and his heart acknowledges the truth; whose tongue is not given to evil; who has never done harm to his fellow, or borne reproach for [his acts towards] his neighbor; for whom a contemptible man is abhorrent, but who honors those who fear the LORD; who stands by his oath even to his hurt; who has never lent money at interest, or accepted a bribe against the innocent.
The man who acts thus shall never be shaken.
He who walks in righteousness, speaks uprightly, spurns profit from fraudulent dealings, waves away a bribe instead of grasping it, stops his ears against listening to infamy, shuts his eyes against looking at evil - Such a one shall dwell in lofty security. I33:15-16a(JPS)
"He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the LORD requires of you: Only to do justice and to love goodness, and to walk modestly with your God; then will your name achieve wisdom." Micah6:8-9a(JPS)
Thus said the LORD: Observe what is right and do what is just; I56:1a(JPS)
Thus said the LORD to the House of Israel: Seek Me, and you will live. Am5:4(JPS)
Lo, his spirit within him is puffed up, not upright, but the righteous man is rewarded with life for his fidelity. Hab2:4(JPS) ::::::::::::::
truth
::::::::::::::
Judaism: Torah, as received by Moses in Hebrew (according to tradition),
is the pointer to Truth.
Islam: Qur'an, as received by Muhammad and directly spoken, and recorded
by his scribe Zaid ibn Thabit in Arabic, is the pointer to Truth.
Christianity:
Syrian Orthodox: founded in Edessa (~30ce) by Thaddeus as authorized in
writing by Jesus in Aramaic [Doctrine of Addai]; Letter from Jesus to
Abgar: {"Blessed art thou who didst believe in me not having seen me, for
it is written concerning me that those who have seen me will not believe
on me, and that those who have not seen me will believe and live. Now
concerning what you wrote to me, to come to you, I must first complete
here all for which I was sent, and after thus completing it be taken up
to him who sent me, and when I have been taken up, I will send to you one
of my disciples to heal your suffering, and give life to you and those
with you."} [Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 1.13.10, Loeb Classics]
Gnosticism: founded by Simon Magus? (~50ce); the "OT" is only a "shadow" of
the Truth & only with special wisdom (gnosis/exegesis) can one "know" the
Truth from it. The physical world is evil, only the spiritual world is
Truth, & Gnostic Christians are "not of this world" which instead is ruled
by the evil "god of this world" [2Cor4:4]. ... Simon Magus of Samaria,
Simonianism [Ac8:9-24,Petrine Acts,EH2.13,...]; Nicolaus of Antioch,
Nicolaitans? [Ac6:5,Rv2:6,15,EH3.29.1-3,...]; Menander disciple of Simon
Magus; Basilides of Alexandria (d.160?) and Satorninus of Antioch (d.120?)
disciples of Menander; "Teachings of Silvanus" (~150): v99.13: Christ has
a single hypostasis [hidden spiritual reality], v102.3: Christ is incomprehensible
with respect to his hypostasis (Nag Hammadi); Valentinus:
(d.175?), founder of Gnostic Valentinian School of Rome, taught secret
wisdom from Paul [Rm16:25,1Cor2:7] from his disciple Theudas, wrote: "On
the 3 Natures", quoted in Pseudo-Anthimus: God is 3 hypostases and 3
prosopa [persons]: Father, Son, Holy Spirit; Heracleon: (~190) disciple
of Valentinus, first commentary on Gospel of John (cited by Origen and
Clement), wrote: "Tripartite Tractate" (Nag Hammadi); "Hypostasis of the
Archons" (~200) (Nag Hammadi); "Valentinian Exposition" (~200): v24.23:
Son is hypostasis of Father (Nag Hammadi) ...
Roman Catholicism: founded in Rome by Simon Peter the first Pope? (~60ce);
Jesus, as proclaimed by the Pope (Vicar of Christ), is Truth.
Marcionism: founded by Marcion? (~140ce); "NT" only Christians, Marcion of
Pontus: first Radical Paulinist?, inspired by Lk5:36, claimed Jesus
rejected "Law and Prophets" (OT), claimed to have recovered lost original
Gospel from Luke, promoted Canon of heavily edited Gospel of Luke and
10 Pauline Letters and his own "Antitheses"
Orthodox: Apostolic Constitutions of Orthodox Christianity (~250ce): #2.36
(p.413): Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased
from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it
is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands. #6.19
(p.458): For He nowhere has dissolved the law, as Simon [Magus] pretends,
but fulfilled it; for He says: [Mt5:18,17]. #7.23 (p.469): But keep the
Sabbath, & the Lord's day festival; because the former is the memorial of
the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only
Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our
Lord's burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival.
[Ante-Nicene Fathers,v.7,Eerdmans] Approved at Synod of Trullo in 692
Protestantism: Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels, but understood
and interpreted by Paul of Tarsus (~50ce), is Truth.
American Puritanism - Manifest Destiny: America is the true Israel,
Puritans are the true Hebrews, and Native Americans are Canaanites ...
Easy Believe-ism: Jesus is God, believe it and go to Heaven [cf. Rom10:9]
SCMJ-ism: Yeshua, as recorded in the Gospels, but understood
and interpreted by Rabbi Shaul, is Truth.
In article <1.16884.1684.0N27F1CD@dscmail.com>, Miryam Nathan
Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah and appointed human
redeemer of Israel. Jesus was specifically an apostle to Jews, teaching
them to observe the entire Torah in accordance with the Pharisees, and
Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles teaching them to obey the Noahide
laws. Jews trying to apply Paul's teachings to themselves will end up
with a variety of treif mixtures of two separate and distinct covenants.
In article <137086@cup.portal.com>,
Kevin W Davidson
A Christian is someone who says they are a follower of Jesus and whose
actions are not inconsistent with one who loves God and neighbor.