The Messiness of History

don · 05-15-09 11:27 am

The Messiness of History Perhaps this should be on a different topic thread, but I will start it hear. I recently ran across this phrase, "The Messiness of History" and have begun studying how it is used by various people. Concept: Secular Theology One concept, rather new to me, is "secular theology". Someone correct me if needed: Secular Theology seems to refer to the practice of being dogmatic about a particular ideology, usually a liberal one. Its perhaps a way of saying that a person remains adamant about something of (social) science without looking at other points of view. Elaine, I thought of you. (My apologies.) For, you consistently espouse the idea that Paul founded Christianity rather than Jesus, whom you assert happened to be just a good Jew. People who say this claim to be scientific about it. IMO, it is a secular ideology laying claim to science and stating matters dogmatically. Thus, secular theology. Any thoughts? (Elaine, I present this for discussion sake, not to be judgmental. I admit that my view also can be described as dogmatic.) Here is the essay which caught my attention regarding "Secular Theology": <a href="http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/35065.html" target="_blank">Dave Ellison: Outlaw the teaching of "untruths" about terrorism?</a> (Message edited by Don on May 15, 2009)

elaine · 05-15-09 1:20 pm

Don, it is difficult to be dispassionate about theology, which is why I continue to study Catholics, Lutherans, Agnostics, SDAs, Orthodox Jews, and probably every religion extant today. This at least gives a broader context as they each have a view of God. I read the seventh-grade teacher's response to 9/11 and he was attempting to educate his students on understanding history. The Jews have always claimed that God gave them the land of Palestine, based on THEIR history. The Islamists also claim the land, having lived there far longer than the Jews. But, once God is brought into the equation, it is unquestioned, and it is why the Christian fundamentalists are eagerly financially aiding the restoration of Israel for the Jews, helping them to settle in Palestinian territory given them by the Oslo Accords. It's like the Crusades: when God is on your side, and your fighting for the "right" it should never be questioned. Dogmatism has no place in theology, but it is ubiquituous; each position claims to hold the truth. Only those who recognize that no position is inviolable and further evidence could change things. Just as the discoveries at Quamram and Nag Hammadi as well as recent archeological findings have altered former understanding, we should always be open to newer evidence, shouldn't we? Science, unlike ID, is always open to new findings; it is never static. Is theology also as open? Personally, as previously stated, I choose NOT to limit my studies to anyone, but want to know all that I possibly can about early Christianity. To date, most scholars credit Paul as the founder of Christianity. However, it is all founded on Christ (thus the name), but recognizes that Christ did not make major changes in religious belief, and although he broke many of the existing Judaic laws, he never planned or indicated he was beginning an entirely new religious belief. His statement that he did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law can be explained as continuing the law, or as in legal terms we understand today, that to "fulfill" the law and its obligations, is to no longer be under the jurisdiction or requirements of that law. If the law demands that I pay a certain bill, and I pay it, is has been fulfilled, and there is no longer any obligation to do so. Which is how most Christians interpret that statement. It also seems to be how Peter and Paul explain it. Jesus did not found a new religion; he expanded the idea of kingdom and was an apocalyptic preacher, similar to John the Baptist, and contemporary traveling prophets of his time. It was left to Paul and later writers to expound upon his saying. The resurrection was the pivotal point of the beginning of a new religious movement, coupled with Pentecost, that demonstrated that no longer could it be contained within Judaism when pagans accepted this new Messiah. Jesus even warned of going to the Gentiles and his mission was totally for the Jews (other than his speaking with the woman from Samaria, who was also a Jew, although considered an outcaste). If Jesus founded Christianity, why as it left to Paul to eliminate the Jewish practices: circumcision, dietary laws, and now open to everyone? How do you define "founder"? You cannot deny that Jesus was a Jew, and that he followed all the Jewish practices and never condemned them. Who, if not God, gave Paul the authority to no longer require those former practices and laws? Was Paul simply doing so of his own accord? When did Jesus ever say that circumcision or the dietary or cleanliness laws were no longer valid? Do you believe in following all the Jewish practices that Jesus lived under? If he is the founder of Christianity, why do you not observe the feasts that he did?

elaine · 05-15-09 1:41 pm

From a Google entry on "secular theology": "Key ideas surrounding fundamentalism as it emerged was the growing isolation it was conveying from culture. Religious separation demonstrated a movement away from culture and as a result caricatured for their objections to smoking, drinking, movies, card playing, dancing, lodges and the like. Political activism also came to light and the religious right was born who were mainly drawn to fundamentalist ties. Jerry Falwell, for example, founded the Moral Majority in the 1970’s. Theologically, fundamentalism’s key ideas surround 1) the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, 2) the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, 3) the substitutionary Atonement, 4) the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus, and 5) the literal, physical return of Christ." I have just completed a series of 36 lectures on "The History of Christian Theology" from The Teaching Company which gives a history of Christianity from the NT to today. All the theories, teachers and complexities are described. Interestingly, the belief of the professor is never disclosed. It is irrelevant to an unbiased discussion of history. He describes all the themes emphasized by the most infuential scholars and preachers and how Christianity has both changed and remained the same, depending on the various religious groups. Also, having listened to similar lectures on the History of Religious Thought it is most enlightening to realize how our understanding has changed as we become better educated in the various disciplines: history, science, and psychology. Religion is a branch of philosophy, as the two have always been entertwined and cannot be separated. They are both ways of viewing the world in a search for truth in morals and ethics.

don · 05-15-09 2:08 pm

It is irrelevant to an unbiased discussion of history. I don't think it is possible to have an unbiased discussion of history. We may think we are unbiased. To do so has its own problems. In our wonderful unbiased state we see ourselves free to be dogmatic, since we are unbiased. Consider this first (teaser) page of Peter Viereck's <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/nn1uct032mebl3u3/fulltext.pdf?page=1" target="_blank">Clio isn't Cleo</a>. "History books are the most furtive form of autobiography... History books are not objective science but psychodrama." Our cultural mindset, be it fundamentalist, post-modern, or after postmodern, it all influences our sense of "history". Thus, as Luther is reported to have said, "Sin boldly." All we can do is seek to be objective and to be humble regarding our biases and then tell history as we see it. Further Reading: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6658705.stm" target="_blank">When History Gets Personal</a> . (Message edited by Don on May 15, 2009)

elaine · 05-15-09 5:04 pm

Don, I agree that all history is biased. But by comparing many writers on the same subject it helps to give a more unbiased conclusion. One thing about the Bible: it has too often been classified as history, even the NT is often called a biographical story of Jesus. But the Bible was never intended to be either historical or biographical. It was written to describe the perceptions of humans as they saw themselves in relation to their God. So, inevitably, the Bible is not true history even in the modern sense. It should be compared, more accurately, with contemporary literature such as the Homeric epics, the many stories of gods, virginal conceptions, miraculous deeds and the superstitions which were part of the culture of that period. The Bible cannot stand alone as not being influenced by the times in which it was written. All the contemporary people believed fervently in demons, visions, spiritual manifestations, miraculous events of healings or curses so the Bible should not be considered unique because all such literature was filled with similar tales. If one believes in the virgin birth, resurrection, miracles as related in scripture, do they also believe in such descriptions in contemporary literature? There are many tales of virginal conceptions and births, gods and goddesses controlling events that sound exactly like the Bible's tales. How can one be accepted and all the others rejected? The Bible is not original at all in such events.

elaine · 05-15-09 5:14 pm

A source of information on what I have just written: <a href="http://www.pocm.info/" target=_top>http://www.pocm.info/</a>

don · 05-16-09 12:40 am

by comparing many writers on the same subject it helps to give a more unbiased conclusion. Yes. Sometimes there are not many writers. I have been studying about the destruction of Jerusalem. It seems that Josephus and Tacitus are the two main sources for information about the event. And some of the information from Tacitus comes down to us through a Christian historian, Sulpicius Severus, who lived around 300. Historians make use of the available accounts and have to decide what is believable and what isn't. The Gospel accounts seem to have been written to convey what really happened. Luke clearly states his purpose at the beginning of his writing. However, because these writings about Jesus contain miracle-stories, the secular, or uninvolved, historian refuses to accept these accounts as authentic history. I can understand that. It certainly takes faith to accept these stories of the supernatural. .

don · 05-16-09 8:08 am

Exhibit: The History of Infant Baptism, Jeremias vs Aland <a href="http://gregscouch.homestead.com/files/Infantbap.html" target="_blank">The Prevalence and Theology of Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, East and West</a>, by Greg Johnson, Saint Louis University, Spring 1999.<blockquote>"This question of the prevalence of infant baptism in the early church has most recently been the object of intense scholarly debate in the interchange that took place between 1958 and 1963 between two respected German scholars, Joachim Jeremias and Kurt Aland."</blockquote>Jeremias contended that infant baptism was practiced from the beginning and that the controversy over baptism developed in the 300's when the idea of adults-only baptism was introduced. Aland, using the same documents used by Jeremias, contends the exact opposite. I submit that this debate between these two careful scholars illustrates the messiness of historical study. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Yet, while Aland considers the same evidence as Jeremias, his methodology is opposite that of Jeremias. While Jeremias had begun with the New Testament and its cultural milieu, working forward, Aland begins with Tertullian early in the third century and works backward. If Jeremias had sought indirect evidence for infant baptism before 200, Aland will only be convinced by direct evidence. Where Jeremias asks whether evidence is compatible with infant baptism, Aland asks whether it is possible to interpret that evidence as compatible with believer's baptism. Thus these two authors interrogate their evidence with opposite assumptions, trying to fit the data with opposite conclusions, taking the evidences in opposite order. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> (Message edited by Don on May 16, 2009)

george · 05-16-09 8:53 am

There can be no discipline that is totally objective because all information must be interpreted by human beings, and none of us can be truly objective. All we can do is choose whose view we can best accept based on our own biases, education, experience ... By the same token no discipline is recorded without bias; however, science sets up safeguards, which, sometimes become infuriating as it insists on experimentation and a rigorous procedural format. Even so, even science can't be totally unbiased as it depends on funding (from whom and for what). It seems that all we can do is make our best judgments based on our personal abilities to be unbiased. That does not mean that once we decide what to believe (about anything) the issue is to be locked down and never questioned again. When it comes to matters of religion we become defensive whenever another view begins to look logical and we feel threatened. These are issues that speak to the core of our being and once we begin to question our own positions, the bottom can fall out and we are left drifting without a certainty to take hold of ( I know of what I speak). With theology, once a thread is seen dangling and we feel the need to pull it, the whole fabric of our belief system begins to unravel. What this means to me is that our certainties and our faith is not based on God, or Christ, or grace, or anything like that, but rather on the security we have in the traditions we have come to know. We should all be able to identify with the Jews who followed Jesus in order to find a reason to get rid of him - they felt the bottom falling out of their theological system and they were scared. The same thing happened in Glacier View with Des Ford. Everybody knew, including Des, what the outcome of that meeting was going to be. There have been numerous "Glacier Views" with many other names throughout history. This leaves the average person helpless, and on his back like a turtle not able to right himself. And, I believe, that is exactly where we need to be in order to take hold of faith, as proclaimed by Paul and lived out by Jesus. Maybe then we can gather together of "one accord" and be blessed as the first Christians were after the bottom had fallen out of their theological world.

don · 05-16-09 9:20 am

It seems that all we can do is make our best judgments based on our personal abilities to be unbiased. That does not mean that once we decide what to believe (about anything) the issue is to be locked down and never questioned again. Yes. In the Jeremias-Aland debate there was some common ground between the two:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Three groups of evidence exist for infant baptism in the third century, Aland observes: the Church Order of Hippolytus, Cyprian's synodal letter, and the writings of Origen.[27] Cyprian cannot be denied as clear evidence, Aland acknowledges; by 250, infant baptism in North Africa was not only a church rule but a church requirement.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>I find it of interest that the date 250 A.D. was acknowledged, by both sides, as clear evidence for the compulsory practice of infant baptism in Africa. What is there about the supporting evidence which compels consensus? Isn't it a direct statement about the matter? The messiness of history revolves around indirect evidence, it seems. Why can't we be content to say, "We don't know for sure" about earlier practices? Are some aspects of the past only available to us through indirect evidence? Must we be detectives of history to be effective historians? . (Message edited by Don on May 16, 2009)

george · 05-16-09 11:01 am

Doesn't infant baptism have more to do with our definition of who is a sinner than tradition alone? The general Christian position is that we are sinners from birth (original sin) and so infants needed to be baptized in case they never made it to adulthood; whereas, the SDA position is that sin has to be committed by sinful acts (and we can actually become sinless if we just tried hard enough - but that's another topic). that would make infant baptism meaningless. - just thinking - but I guess we weren't really talking about baptism at all but how history gets distorted. So maybe we need to see when the idea of "original sin" came into the picture.

don · 05-16-09 11:14 am

So maybe we need to see when the idea of "original sin" came into the picture. This is addressed in the discussion of Jeremias and Aland. Apparently, they agree that the earliest records give not evidence to the "original guilt" idea. The idea that people in the early church viewed life as a corporate rather than an individual experience would also explain why the infants were baptized; i.e. because Mom and/or Dad were baptized, the whole family was. the SDA position is that sin has to be committed by sinful acts (and we can actually become sinless if we just tried hard enough - but that's another topic). It seems to me that the topic of "Original Sin" was discussed earlier when Bill Sorenson still posted here. If I remember correctly, he presented the notion of "Original Sin" as an Adventist concept. Brinsmead, in one of his earliest stances, taught that God would remove our "Original Sin" at the judgment at the time of the close of probation. This was the main contention that the leadership of the Church had against his theology, if I am not mistaken. .

elaine · 05-16-09 11:14 am

The Catholic, Lutheran, and other churches baptize infants. The reason is that in Paul he states that in Adam we all sinned, and sinned from conception. If that is true, then Original Sin meant that only by infant baptism could a child be assured of eternal life. Baptism is required for salvation, and it is a paradox to believe that we are sinners from birth, and yet do not baptize those "sinners" until years afterward. Sirje, I loved your analogy to pulling a string and everthing we believe in becomes unraveled. When one's whole religious system is tied to their huge emotional investment in that belief, then to even harbor a doubt is frightening. It must be pushed out of the mind, ignored, and refused admittance. When anyone becomes so certain of their present beliefs, and has no doubts, there is no room for either the Holy Spirit, or it is closed to further knowledge or truth. Don, Josephus recounts history with the Jewish perspective, and Tacitus as a Roman. Both are suspect as to actual, literal truth. Just as are the biblical accounts. While theologically the NT cannot be challenged, because the writers wrote as the believed, nevertheless, sincerity does not qualify as truth: one can sincerely believe many things that are wrong. If you have read much of ancient literature, it is full of supernatural events, just as is the Bible but I doubt you accept those accounts, while accepting all the supernatural record in the Bible. It is because you have chosen to invest your faith in that book which is not to be questioned. What makes the difference? It did not demand faith of the contemporaries to believe such miraculous evens, nor were these events seen as anything out of the ordinary at the time. However, today we are more doubting. Although there are stil people who believe in UFOs, Jesus' face in a cheese sandwich or tortilla, miraculous healing at revivals, etc. One decides what and whom to believe, and the stories surrounding their hero. Can one be a Christian who follows Christ's example? Or, must belief in all the supernatural events of his birth and life be believed to qualify as a Christian? There is just as much belief required to accept the biblical stories as the Catholics who believe in the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary. After all, the Church both declared the Trinity, nature of Christ, and Mary's conception.

don · 05-16-09 2:38 pm

Can one be a Christian who follows Christ's example? You have pointed out that the Resurrection is the essential starting point for Christianity. Belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is belief in the key miracle of Scripture. Regarding the Resurrection, Paul said<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (The Message) 12-15 Now, let me ask you something profound yet troubling. If you became believers because you trusted the proclamation that Christ is alive, risen from the dead, how can you let people say that there is no such thing as a resurrection? If there's no resurrection, there's no living Christ. And face it—if there's no resurrection for Christ, everything we've told you is smoke and mirrors, and everything you've staked your life on is smoke and mirrors. Not only that, but we would be guilty of telling a string of barefaced lies about God, all these affidavits we passed on to you verifying that God raised up Christ—sheer fabrications, if there's no resurrection. 16-20 If corpses can't be raised, then Christ wasn't, because he was indeed dead. And if Christ weren't raised, then all you're doing is wandering about in the dark, as lost as ever. It's even worse for those who died hoping in Christ and resurrection, because they're already in their graves. If all we get out of Christ is a little inspiration for a few short years, we're a pretty sorry lot. But the truth is that Christ has been raised up, the first in a long legacy of those who are going to leave the cemeteries.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>It seems that Paul taught that belief in at least one miracle, the Resurrection, is essential to being a Christian. Jesus said, "By their fruit you will know them." Regarding how much you believe of the miraculous, God is judge. Jesus never held up His miracles as the saving knowledge of His message. Peter said that Jesus had the "Words of Life". When John wondered whether Jesus was the Messiah, Jesus sent word by John's disciples that he should consider the miraculous in trying to assess the matter. Thus, Jesus taught that the miraculous was helpful. I have chosen to believe the scriptural accounts. And, I do relate to them differently than other accounts which report supernatural happenings. Also, there is a certain amount of reserve I experience regarding some Biblical stories but those I put on the back burner, so to speak. I have come to view myself as a skeptical believer; an oxymoron. I consider the miracles essential because the canonical writer asserts that they happened. I also consider them essential because belief in miracles raises my perception above the mundane and causes me to watch for the miraculous in my own life. Analytical philosopher <a href="http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/board/green.html" target="_blank">Tom Green</a> (The Activities of Teaching) advised his readers to reduce their unsubstantiated beliefs to a minimum. I rather like that approach and have tried to follow it in both my faith and science. If the canonical writers did not report the miracles, I would have no difficulty with their absence. But, I have found the Scriptures to be a positive life-changing force for me. The miracles add mystery and perplexity. .

elaine · 05-16-09 3:17 pm

There are many honest and sincere Christians who believe that the Resurrection is not a bodily one but spiritual. The Bible does introduce this idea as after the Resurrection, Jesus can appear and disappear, walk through walls, etc. "Someone may ask, 'How are dead people raised, and what sort of body do they have when they come back?' They are stupid questions, Whatever you sow in the ground has to die before it is given new life and the thing that you sow is not what is going to come...and then God gives it the sort of body that he has chosen: each sort of seed gets it own sort of body...There are heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the heavenly bodies have a beauty of their own and the earthly bodies a different one...It is the same with the resurrection of the dead: the thing that is sown is perishable but what is raised is imperishable; the thing that is sown is contemptible but what is raised is glorious; the thing that is sown is weak but what is raised is powerful; when it is sown it embodies the soul, when it is raised it embodies the spirit. If the soul has its own embodiment, so does this spirit have it own embodiment...As this earthly man was, so are we on earth; and as the heavenly man is, so are we in heaven. And we, who have been modelled on the earthy man, will be modelled on the heavenly man...put it this way: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" 1 Cor. 15. This indicates that there was a difference in Jesus after he was resurrected, and there will be for those who are also resurrected,

george · 05-16-09 5:04 pm

Yes, well, I used to wonder how the nail prints were still visible in Jesus' hands after the resurrection when he is the first fruits and we now look forward to eternity without our physical impediments.

don · 05-16-09 7:38 pm

This indicates that there was a difference in Jesus after he was resurrected, and there will be for those who are also resurrected, The key seems to be the empty tomb. Wouldn't you agree? In Nova Scotia, at the <a href="http://www.usainteanne.ca/" target="_blank">Université Sainte-Anne</a> on the French shore, there is <a href="http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1204700955060729729sDzBDZ" target="_blank">a huge woooden cathedral</a>; the <a href="http://www.gonanaimo.com/canada/church-point.html" target="_blank"> largest wooden structure in North America</a>. Inside this marvellous structure is a museum that is open to the public. The museum features a reliquary, a collection of religious artifacts. Within a glass case (I observed it personally) are the "bones of Jesus' grandmother, St. Anne." None of the cathedrals in all the world contain any of the bones of Mary. Why? Because the church says that she was taken to heaven, body and all; i.e. the Assumption of Mary. The Resurrection of Jesus from the tomb leaving an empty tomb is what Paul refers to when he speaks of "affidavits" (see the Message paraphrase above). No bones left. Now, that's a miracle, or its nothing. Wouldn't you agree? Here is where empirical assertions and the supernatural touch. For Christianity, it is essential. More pictures: <a href="http://family.webshots.com/photo/1019800512015557061NiKbZGaglO" target="_blank">A Model of St. Anne's Church</a> <a href="http://www.dioceseyarmouth.org/pages/stmarie.html" target="_blank">St. Mary's Church Point</a> .

elaine · 05-17-09 12:10 am

The NT record says that Jesus asked not to be touched immediately after the Resurrection. Why? And why did he seem to be different as described above? There is no doubt that the apostles believed the stories they told, and the record we have today claims no eye witness, but is from oral transmission. Which is one reason the none of the reports are exact duplicates: just as people's memories of an event are never the same. Also, people's memories are very inaccurate as psychologists have studied, and are not considered to be absolutely reliably true; not because people lie, but any story whether true or wrong, if repeated enough is believed completely. This has been proved repeatedly by children who have heard a story about themselves when too young to remember, and it eventually is reported as if they remember all the details. We have faithful believers who wrote the NT; there are none who report a man (Lazarus) being raised from the dead, or all the other miracles attributed to Jesus. Since there were similar events believed by everyone in that time, it was not considered unusual. Where are any secular historians that report what is in the NT? Perhaps because there were similar beliefs in the contemporary world. Today, none of us (?) believe in the one-eyed people, Cyclops, in an island reported in the Odyssey, or of his lengthy journey precipated for the return of a captive beauty. Or that the other gods also conceived with a human and a royal birth resulted. It was simple and unquestioned for contemporary people in the first century to believe all those things. Today, only Christians accept such stories and reject all the others outside the Bible. Yet they originated in the same culture that easily believed such miraculous events. According to the Bible, Jesus was not the first one resurrected or taken to heaven. There was Enoch, Moses, Elijah, the boy brought back to life by Elijah (or Elisha?), Lazarus, and Jairus'daughter and the son of the widow of Nain. So, was it really all that unusual an event for the Bible writers?

don · 05-17-09 11:15 am

Exhibit - The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals I present this post for basic information about the exhibit; with highlights. In the next post, I will provide some thoughts. Schaff on the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals<blockquote>The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX: Petri - Reuchlin By Philip Schaff PSEUDO-ISIDORIAN DECRETALS AND OTHER FORGERIES The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are certain fictitious letters ascribed to early popes, from Clement to Gregory the Great, incorporated in a ninth-century collection of canons purporting to have been made by "Isidore Mercator." Three other lawbooks of the same time and place are closely connected with these false decretals and are necessarily treated with them, viz.: the Pseudo-Isidorian recension of the Spanish collection of canons; the Capitula Angilramni; and the capitularies of Benedict Levita. The name "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" has been in use since the awakening of criticism in the sixteenth century, and Bernhard Eduard Simson in 1886 gave the fitting designation "Pseudo-Isidorian Forgeries" to the whole series... 3. Sources and Method. The fabrications of the Pseudo-Isidore are not expressed in his own language, but consist of sentences, phrases, and words taken from older writings, genuine and apocryphal, set together into a mosaic of about 10,000 and pieces. The excerpts are freely altered and are sometimes given a sense directly opposite to the original, but by his method the Pseudo-Isidore sought to give to his ninth-century product the stamp of antiquity. The labor involved was enormous; and the search for the sources of the Pseudo-Isidore's excerpts (begun by David Blondel, 1628; continued by Hermann Knust, 1832, and Paul Hinschius, 1863; an additional source disclosed by the publication of the Irish collection of canons in 1874) has shown a reading on his part which is astonishing in its breadth and extent. He may have used abridgments and collections such as florilegia or anthologies from the Bible, the Fathers, etc. but, even so, he must be reckoned among the most learned men of the ninth century. The following are some of the sources drawn upon: (1) the Bible, extensively (Vulgate text, but with noteworthy variations); (2) the acts of forty-five or fifty synods and councils; (3) the decretals of twenty popes, mostly of the fifth and sixth centuries, none of the ninth; (4) Roman law (the extracts are sometimes attributed to the Council of Nicea or the Apostles); (5) the Germanic Lex Wisigothorum; (6) the capitularies of Frankish kings, sparingly; (7) the Penitentiale Theodori and the Martenianum; (8) more than thirty Church Fathers and other writers, and letters of bishops and private individuals; (9) the "Donation of Constantine," the Liber pontificalis, the rules of Benedict and Chrodegang, etc. 4. Time and Place of Origin. Thus far the results of investigation have been definite and are generally accepted. The field of controversy is now entered with the questions of the date and place of origin of the collection. The recension A2 (perhaps A1) was used by Hinemar of Reims in his Capitula presbyteris of Nov. 1, 852, unless the passage is a later interpolation, as is maintained (without good reason) by some scholars. It is certainly cited in the Admonitio (by Hincmar) of the capitulary of Quiercy, Feb.14, 857. One of these dates, then Nov. 1, 852, or Feb. 14, 857 is the terminus ante quem of the publication of the collection, and its completion may be set a few months earlier. It is more difficult to fix the terminus post quem; but Benedict's capitularies were completed after Apr. 21, 847 (see IV., 3, below); and when his fourth addition (admitted to be the latest part of his work) was written, the false decretals were not yet completed (see IV., 3, 5, below). The autumn of 847 is perhaps the earliest date, and, all things considered, about 850 or 851 is the most probable date for the completion of the collection. How long a time was spent in its preparation can only be conjectured; but a cautious judgment will hardly set the birth-year of the Pseudo-Isidorian idea earlier than 846 ... 7. History of the Collection ... With the possible exception of Hincmar and the guarded expression of the Synod of Gerstungen, no one raised his voice against the forgeries till the fifteenth century. Then Heinrich Kalteisen of Coblenz, Nicholas of Cusa, and Juan Torquemada challenged the decretals of Clement and Anacletus. In the next century suspicion extended as far as Siricius (Erasmus; two editors of the Corpus juris canonici, Charles Du Moulin, 1554, and Antoine Le Conte, 1556; Georgius Cassander, 1564). The "Magdeburg Centuries" (1559) and David Blondel (1628) brought the full and incontestable proof. For the history of criticism since then, see the bibliography... <a href="http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.lxxiv.htm" target=_top>http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv. v.lxxiv.htm</a></blockquote>

don · 05-17-09 11:35 am

Exhibit - The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals - Some Thoughts The name "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" has been in use since the awakening of criticism in the sixteenth century, As Adventists we have decried the use of "higher criticism" to dissect the Bible. Yet, it was the critical method which led to the discovery of this massive fraud. These forgeries were uncontested for over 600 years. <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:With the possible exception of Hincmar and the guarded expression of the Synod of Gerstungen, no one raised his voice against the forgeries till the fifteenth century.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> When it was discovered that the "earlier" church writers quoted from later church writers, the fraud began to unravel. The labor involved (in masking the forgeries) was enormous; and the search for the sources of the Pseudo-Isidore's excerpts (begun by David Blondel, 1628; continued by Hermann Knust, 1832, and Paul Hinschius, 1863; an additional source disclosed by the publication of the Irish collection of canons in 1874) has shown a reading on his part which is astonishing in its breadth and extent. The extent of the fraud is a nightmare for people who want to trust authority; even the authority of the Biblical canon. How do you know that what you have is really what you have? The autumn of 847 is perhaps the earliest date, and, all things considered, about 850 or 851 is the most probable date for the completion of the collection. How long a time was spent in its preparation can only be conjectured; but a cautious judgment will hardly set the birth-year of the Pseudo-Isidorian idea earlier than 846 ... Setting dates for the time of writing is an essential task of textual criticism. When Pseudo-Isidore forged those documents in such a crafty manner, he influenced the way the Middle Ages progressed. His work and the historical inquiry it has produced adds new flavour to the notion of messiness in history. Apparently, the Roman Catholic Church historians refused to admit they were forgeries until the middle 1800's. .

don · 05-18-09 6:43 am

Exhibit - The Waldenses and Early Christianity I am just beginning to examine the debate regarding the Waldenses. The present-day Waldenses have a Calvinistic view of the world. They view their founder to be Peter Waldo. When they came into fellowship with the Reformation, they adopted Reformation theology. Any reference to the Waldenses as existing before Peter Waldo are said to be historically inaccurate. Those who disagree sometimes claim that the Roman Catholic Church likes the Peter Waldo view because then it can claim the ancient church as its own. Ellen White mentions that (some) of the Waldenses kept the Sabbath. The modern Waldensian church denies that any Waldenses ever kept the Sabbath. In his History of the Sabbath, J. N. Andrews cites historical authors who both contend that "Waldenses" lived before Peter Waldo and that some of those ancient believers kept the Sabbath. This debate interests me on several levels. <ul><li>Determining the issues is challenging. <LI>The historical sources cited are available on the internet. <LI>Because Ellen White weighed in on this, examining her historical assertions stir the Adventist soul.</li></ul>Further reading on this can be found at the <a href="http://www.covenantforum.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=1535&post=4689#POST4689" target="_blank">Adventist Education Library</a>. (Message edited by Don on May 18, 2009)

elaine · 05-18-09 2:40 pm

Don, I have copied and only very briefly looked at some of these documents. Some refute EGW's statements and we should all (as you do) want other confirmations rather than accepting hers as the only one. Years ago, I visted this site on a Reformation Tour conducted by H.M.S. Richards. We went to the site of the original church and even bought one of their hymnbooks . No one refutes the idea that there have always been people since the Jews, who celebrated the Sabbath; nor is there any NT instruction to the Jews against their continuation of this observance. My contention is that neither is there a shred of evidence from both the NT and history that the Gentile Christians were ever commanded to begin observing the Sabbath as their holy day of worship. Because there is no historical record of Jewish-Christians after the end of the first century (I await correction) the Gentiles became the Christian church, and it was in Antioch, a Greek city, where they were first given that name. There were Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire then, and far fewer were actually in Palestine where Jesus ministered. Nor did Jesus ever go to the pagans, it was after Pentecost that pagans began accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and it was there that Christianity became a religion no longer based on ethnicity but open to everyone. It was only by eliminating the Jewish requirements for pagans to become Jewish believers, that the church spread so rapidly; and it spread among the Greeks (Gentiles and pagans). Had the Jewish requirements been instituted by the apostles, there would be no Christians today. That last is an accepted fact due to the Jewish requirments of circumcision--which effectively eliminated adult Christians from joining the Jews in their religious beliefs.

don · 05-18-09 7:12 pm

My contention is that neither is there a shred of evidence from both the NT and history that the Gentile Christians were ever commanded to begin observing the Sabbath as their holy day of worship. I agree that the New Testament lacks straight out commands for several of the Ten Commandments. If the Ten Commandments were always valued, there would be no need to repeat the commands. Jesus' counsel regarding the Sabbath can be interpreted as the Early Christians' support of the Sabbath as He presented it; i.e. He is the Lord of the Sabbath; It is lawful to do good on the day; It was made for man's benefit not to oppress... I have noted that the term "sabbath" can mean different things within the context of its usage. Therefore the Pauline usage of "sabbath" is open to interpretation. Plus, it makes sense to have a weekly rest day. The early post-apostolic church seems to have always valued a weekly worship day. Now, as we go beyond the canon, we find that quite a few of the Gentiles maintained a regard for the Seventh-day Sabbath, especially among the Eastern churches. If I am not mistaken, those early believers were guided rather strongly by their leadership. So much so that later church councils had to make church laws against their observing of the Seventh-day Sabbath. Obviously, some of the Gentile Christians understood Sabbath observance to be a Christian obligation; i.e. a command from their overseers. Seems like at least a "shred of evidence" from "history", wouldn't you agree? (Message edited by Don on May 18, 2009)

elaine · 05-18-09 10:32 pm

later church councils had to make church laws against their observing of the Seventh-day Sabbath. Obviously, some of the Gentile Christians understood Sabbath observance to be a Christian obligation; i.e. a command from overseers. Although I am not doubting your statements, would you please give the sources, as it does not correlate with my studies. Particularly, which Gentile Christians understood Sabbath observance to be a Christian obligation? it makes sense to have a weekly rest day. The early post-apostolic church seems to have always valued a weekly worship day. But this statement does not mention any specific day, does it? Nor does common sense signify any special day. Where is there a text explaining that the Gentile Christians were instructed on ANY day that was to be considered holy? The Jews needed no reminding of repeating of the Sabbath, but the pagans were worshiping idols and there is no record (do you have one?) where pagans were worshiping or observing the Jewish Sabbath either before becoming Christian or afterward. For Adventists who claim to use the Bible for their guide for living, which Testament do they use? Surely not the OT, as they ignore a great majority, although not all, of the commands given for feast days, and uncleanliness, etc. Or, should Christians ignore Paul's statements about the Jews having "no right to make the pagans copy Jewish ways," or those "foolish enough to end in outward observances" . How do you interpret his saying: "Never let anone else decide what you should eat or drink, or whether you are to observe annual feasts, New Moons or a Sabbath day." It seems clear to the Christian world, so how do you, as an Adventist explain or abide by Paul's instructions?

don · 05-19-09 1:04 am

Don: later church councils had to make church laws against their observing of the Seventh-day Sabbath. Obviously, some of the Gentile Christians understood Sabbath observance to be a Christian obligation; i.e. a command from overseers. Elaine: Although I am not doubting your statements, would you please give the sources, as it does not correlate with my studies. Particularly, which Gentile Christians understood Sabbath observance to be a Christian obligation? Don: it makes sense to have a weekly rest day. The early post-apostolic church seems to have always valued a weekly worship day. Elaine: But this statement does not mention any specific day, does it? Nor does common sense signify any special day. Where is there a text explaining that the Gentile Christians were instructed on ANY day that was to be considered holy? The Biblical text would be Jesus' counsel regarding the Sabbath. We still use Jesus' counsel to instruct about how to keep the Sabbath. I submit that the early post-apostolic church did not use Romans 14 to nullify a weekly day of worship. I have never read such an interpretation, but am ready to be shown otherwise. _____________________________ Now for the Church Councils taking time to deal with Seventh-day Sabbath observance. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm" target="_blank">The Council of Laodicea</a> (363) <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Canon 16 The Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote>An added note by the Catholic New Advent site:</blockquote><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Among the Greeks the Sabbath was kept exactly as the Lord's day except so far as the cessation of work was concerned, wherefore the Council wishes that, as on Sundays, after the other lessons there should follow the Gospel.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Canon 29 Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Canon 49 During Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Canon 51 The nativities of Martyrs are not to be celebrated in Lent, but commemorations of the holy Martyrs are to be made on the Sabbaths and Lord's days. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xiv.viii.html" target="_blank">The Second Council of Nice</a> (787)<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Canon VIII. That Hebrews ought not to be received unless they have been converted in sincerity of heart. Since certain, erring in the superstitions of the Hebrews, have thought to mock at Christ our God, and feigning to be converted to the religion of Christ do deny him, and in private and secretly keep the Sabbath and observe other Jewish customs, we decree that such persons be not received to communion, nor to prayers, nor into the Church; but let them be openly Hebrews according to their religion, and let them not bring their children to baptism, nor purchase or possess a slave. But if any of them, out of a sincere heart and in faith, is converted and makes profession with his whole heart, setting at naught their customs and observances, and so that others may be convinced and converted, such an one is to be received and baptized, and his children likewise; and let them be taught to take care to hold aloof from the ordinances of the Hebrews. But if they will not do this, let them in no wise be received. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>It is getting late. More will have to be presented later. Two forces seem to have been at work to keep the Sabbath alive in those early centuries of Christianity: Christians who recognized the ongoing value of the Ten Commandments and Jews wanting to convert to Christianity and retain their Jewish customs. Both the Council of Laodicea and the much later Second Council of Nice address these forces. When I studied these things at Southern, I noted, with surprise, the strong support for the Sabbath among some of the post-apostolic fathers. It seems obvious to me that some congregations, even regional zones, maintained a special regard for the Sabbath (Note the special regard given it by the Council of Laodicea). Also, the assertion that there is no record of an ongoing Jewish church has some problems to it: The rules against Jews maintaining their customs indicates that there were ongoing issues with Jewish Christians. The reason why so little is recorded of them in the later centuries is because the organized church systematically forced them to abandon their practices. The Jews early on forced Christians out of their synaogogues and the Gentile church in later centuries forced Jewish believers to abandon their practices, including the Sabbath. (Doesn't sound like Romans 14 was being applied, does it?) .

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 05-15-09 11:27 am

The Messiness of History

#2 05-15-09 1:20 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#3 05-15-09 1:41 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#4 05-15-09 2:08 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#5 05-15-09 5:04 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#6 05-15-09 5:14 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#7 05-16-09 12:40 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#8 05-16-09 8:08 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#9 05-16-09 8:53 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#10 05-16-09 9:20 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#11 05-16-09 11:01 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#12 05-16-09 11:14 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#13 05-16-09 11:14 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#14 05-16-09 2:38 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#15 05-16-09 3:17 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#16 05-16-09 5:04 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#17 05-16-09 7:38 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#18 05-17-09 12:10 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#19 05-17-09 11:15 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#20 05-17-09 11:35 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#21 05-18-09 6:43 am

Re: The Messiness of History

#22 05-18-09 2:40 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#23 05-18-09 7:12 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#24 05-18-09 10:32 pm

Re: The Messiness of History

#25 05-19-09 1:04 am

Re: The Messiness of History

Board footer