|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholics are making it up. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
ringo writes:
The text doesn't say that; read it again. Perhaps the NIV translation makes it a bit clearer:
They met because he was leaving on the next day. Presumably, if he was leaving on the fourth day, they could have met on any day before that.quote: The text says two things:1) they met together on the first day for the purpose of breaking bread (not necessarily because Paul was leaving the next day) 2) they extended their meeting until midnight because Paul was leaving the next day Was this meeting on the first day their normal habit, or was it an unusual occurrence? We can't say for sure from this text alone. But since the purpose of their meeting was to "break bread", and this was a regular habit (Acts 2:42 "They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer") it is likely that they had already begun to habitually meet on the first day of the week."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
jar writes:
The Hebrew names for the days of the week are simply the numbers of the days. I.e. the Hebrew name for "Sunday" is "first day". The book of Acts was written in a Jewish context. The "first day of the week" in Acts was Sunday.
Nor is Sunday necessarily "the first day of the week". In Jewish tradition the Sabbath is sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. Sunday is considered the first day of the week. In Roman times Monday (Diana's day) was considered the first day of the week.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No one is arguing otherwise as I pointed out and you quoted.
Abe: But neither the Jews or Early Christians used Sunday as the name for the first day of the week. We really have no way to accurately determine what day would correspond nor is it of any importance. The point is that religions, including Christianity have been making it up and changing practices and dogma since the very beginning. Worrying about what day Paul and company broke bread is just a continuation of the theater of the absurd. Edited by jar, : hit wrong keyAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Agreed, they did not use the name "Sunday" for the first day of the week. They were Hebrews, so they used the name "first day" for the first day of the week. There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week.
No one is arguing otherwise as I pointed out and you quoted.Abe: But neither the Jews or Early Christians used Sunday as the name for the first day of the week. We really have no way to accurately determine what day would correspond nor is it of any importance. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Who knows whether a site calling itself Sabathtruths is reliable but according to this guy, it was simply a declaration.
About 100 years before Christianity, Egyptian Mithraists introduced the festival of Sunday, dedicated to worshiping the sun, into the Roman Empire. Later, as Christianity grew, church leaders wished to increase the numbers of the church. In order to make the gospel more attractive to non-Christians, pagan customs were incorporated into the church’s ceremonies. The custom of Sunday worship was welcomed by Christians who desired to differentiate themselves from the Jews, whom they hated because of the Jews’ rejection of the Savior. The first day of the week began to be recognized as both a religious and civil holiday. By the end of the second century, Christians considered it sinful to work on Sunday. The Roman emperor Constantine, a former sun-worshiper, professed conversion to Christianity, though his subsequent actions suggest the conversion was more of a political move than a genuine heart change. Constantine named himself Bishop of the Catholic Church and enacted the first civil law regarding Sunday observance in A.D. 321. On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrate and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however, persons engaged in agricultural work may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain growing or for vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. III, chap. 75. Note that Constantine’s law did not even mention Sabbath but referred to the mandated rest day as a the venerable day of the sun. And how kind he was to allow people to observe it as it was convenient. Contrast this with God’s command to observe the Sabbath even during the plowing season and harvest (Exodus 34:21)! Perhaps the church leaders noticed this laxity as well, for just four years later, in A.D. 325, Pope Sylvester officially named Sunday the Lord’s Day, and in A.D. 338, Eusebius, the court bishop of Constantine, wrote, All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath (the seventh day of the week) we (Constantine, Eusebius, and other bishops) have transferred to the Lord’s Day (the first day of the week) as more appropriately belonging to it. - See more at:
Where's the Evidence That the Sabbath Was Changed? | Sabbath Truth
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week. So you claim but where is the evidence to support that assertion? Dating, even determining when holy days should happen, was an inexact science and varied based on local. The Hebrews used a lunar calendar based on local conditions. By the time "Hebrews" would have been written there was in addition the influences of Greece and Rome to add confusion to "days of the week". But there is also the actual topic to consider, stuff like what day the week begins is simply another of the many things people made up.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes: kbertsche writes:
So you claim but where is the evidence to support that assertion?
There should be no question that the "first day" is really the first day of their week. This corresponds to Sunday, the first day of our week. Our week has seven days, numbered one through seven. The first day is named "Sunday" and the seventh "Saturday". The Hebrew week as followed by Jews (OT, NT, and modern) has seven days, numbered one through seven. The first day of their week is named "First Day" and the seventh is named "Sabbath", a word related to the word for "seven". To this day, the Jewish Sabbath is the same day as our Saturday (yes, the Jewish Sabbath day starts at sundown the previous evening and continues through the daylight hours of Saturday, but this is a minor correction). So when the NT speaks of the "Sabbath", we should understand this as "Saturday" (but realizing that the Sabbath day actually started at sundown Friday evening). When the NT speaks of the "first day of the week", we should understand this as "Sunday" (again realizing that the first day actually started at sundown after the Sabbath). This should all be obvious and self-evident. Why is there any question or confusion at all about this?!? It would be nonsensical to say that the Jewish Sabbath is not Saturday. This would mean that the Jews had mixed up their own calendar. This is possible, of course, but one would need evidence for this assertion. Where is your evidence?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Why is there any question or confusion at all about this?!? Easy! When belief is one's guide, rather than evidence, anything goes! You believes it, that settles it! Phooooey on evidence. This accounts for the tens of thousands of different denominations, sects, and flavors of christianity, as well as tens of thousands of different religions throughout history.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
... or at least some religions evolve.
You still miss the point. The fact that there was a seven day week is not questioned. The fact that Jews today celebrate the Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown is not in question. What evidence is there though that the sequence has been continual and consistent?
BUT... I repeat... all that is still irrelevant!!!! The fact is that what day a week starts on is simply yet another example of humans making stuff up and in particular the Judaic religions making stuff up that is different than what other religions and even other Christian religions made up. There is no such thing as a right "First day of the Week" and any such designation is just something (in this case religions) make up. Dates were a major problem and the idea of uniform dates is a really new thing. Even important dates like Easter were often observed weeks apart depending on location, season and culture. The changes in the Roman Catholic church all seem to be examples of evolution, of a return to morality and humanity; and Praise God, will hopefully lead to similar reformation particularly among "Biblical Christianity".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined:
|
Without a doubt, the lack of consistency in the Sabbath day is the Trojan Horse that will precipitate the destruction of religion in the modern age.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
I agree; this is completely irrelevant. It is doubtful that the Jewish calendar slipped a day or two; but even if it did, it would be irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not the sequence has been continual and consistent.
What evidence is there though that the sequence has been continual and consistent? BUT... I repeat... all that is still irrelevant!!!!
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
Exactly. It's quite a stretch to use it as a basis for Sunday worship.
Was this meeting on the first day their normal habit, or was it an unusual occurrence? We can't say for sure from this text alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1051 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
It's been argued and fought over ever since - hence even people that call themselves Christians can't agree on it. There's thousands of versions of this 'truth' - even liberal Christians can't agree. The particular dumped 'truths' we've been talking about where imposed on the laity by decree from a man claiming infallibility - for god's sake. Sorry if the point I'm about to make has been made already, but new pages appear on this thread faster than I read them, so I thought I'd give up on ever catching up to the end. You keep talking about papal infallibility, but don't seem to really understand what it means - despite at one point quoting from the Wikipedia article on the topic. Papal infallibility was formally promulgated as doctrine, it must be remembered in 1870. The bishops who defined the doctrine were not simpletons, whatever you may think of their beliefs, and they were conversant with Church history. What this means is that even the most dogmatic amongst them was fully cognizant of the fact that a doctrine defined in some form like 'the Pope is infallible and everything he says is therefore correct' would be self-evidently contradictory, since they all knew in some detail the theological disputes of the past between different Popes. Clearly, popes are sometimes wrong - this is a fact no theologian would deny. The doctrine of infallibility, then, does not apply to every idle thought expressed by a Pope. It does not, even, apply to most of their deeply held and forcefully expressed beliefs. To be considered infallible, a doctrine has to be expressed in a certain form, often with the explicit declaration that you're going to hell if you doubt this fundamental fact. The actual wording used in one of the very few examples of an infallible doctrine promulgated since the concept's formal definition (by Pius XII, in 1950) goes:
quote: You keep talking about the Church changing its mind about 'core truths', and they may well have done so, but I'm not sure you've given any convincing any examples. Limbo is a doctrine the church has argued over what centuries - in what sense is it 'core' to Catholic belied? The things that Catholics themselves argue to be their core truths, as taken from the Nicene Creed, still seem pretty steady 1,700 years later:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
petrophysics1 Inactive Member |
Great someone who knows what they are talking about.
Ex cathedra is a Latin phrase which means "from the chair." It refers to binding and infallible papal teachings which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world. So when was the last time a pope did this? And do you disagree with what he said. I was born in 1949 and I don't know of a pope who I think would say he had everything in the world figured out. Compare that to Tangle and Faith who know everything about existence and tell you so again and again and again...........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Caffeine writes: You keep talking about papal infallibility, but don't seem to really understand what it means Coming from an Irish background, I do indeed know exactlty what it means.
The doctrine of infallibility, then, does not apply to every idle thought expressed by a Pope. It does not, even, apply to most of their deeply held and forcefully expressed beliefs. To be considered infallible, a doctrine has to be expressed in a certain form, often with the explicit declaration that you're going to hell if you doubt this fundamental fact. Popes rarely speak infallibly, but they always speak authoritively - a point I have already tried to make. The Catholic church believes that popes are gods represetatives on earth, a role handed down hand by hand directly from Peter. It hammers that message home in all its teachings to the laity. Adding the infalibilty clause legitimises the godliness and power of his proclamations and makes it easier to enforces them. In any case the pure concept of proclaiming a human infalible in ANY circumstances is a massive hubris.
You keep talking about the Church changing its mind about 'core truths', and they may well have done so, but I'm not sure you've given any convincing any examples. Limbo is a doctrine the church has argued over what centuries - in what sense is it 'core' to Catholic belied? I have given several examples of the church changing its mind over what was once hard and fast fact as preached in its churches and schools. The fact that Vatican accademics have squabbled over some of them, is irrelevant. If you just take the limbo fantasy, it was hammered into Catholic parents that you must baptise your newborn quickly or risk it never finding everlasting happiness. That was definately a core belief - it was a heaven or not event for everyday Catholics.
The things that Catholics themselves argue to be their core truths, as taken from the Nicene Creed, still seem pretty steady 1,700 years Sorry that is incomplete by a very long margin and would define anyone calling themselves a Christin. To be a Catholic you have to buy into the whole 'tradition' which is defined by the Catechism. An extraordinary work of fiction
This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".15 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM The Catholic faith have a massive overlay of tradition that circle the basic beliefs that all Christians have; if you don't sign up for them you're excommunicated by default.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024