Re: Comment's on Allens postings

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Thu Jul 18 2002 - 02:21:34 EDT

  • Next message: Terry M. Gray: "Re: Comment's on Allens postings"

    From: "Robert Schneider" <>
    > I combine statements from two of Allen Roy's postings. The first come =
    > from "Re: Immortality of the Soul" posted on 7/17. My comments are in =
    > this "Arial" typeface.
    > Allen: "The translators of the Septuagint were out to prove to the =
    > Greeks that the
    > Bible did not conflict with pagan Greek philosophy." =20
    > Bob's comment: I should like Allen to provide evidence for this =
    > sweeping assertion. I'm very suspicious of it and would like something =
    > substantial to back it up.

    I must confess that this is something which I have absorbed from an
    assortment of sources and I cannot provide any quotes to back it up.
    I'll have to say that this is my opinion and leave it at that.

    > Allen, "The word Sheol is simply the grave, nothing more, nothing less."
    > Bob's comment: Allen is quite incorrect on this point, as any careful
    > exploration of the uses of "Sheol" in the OT will demonstrate. I =
    > recommend the article on "Sheol" in John McKenzie's Dictionary of the =
    > Bible, p. 800-801.

    The word Sheol is used 66 time in the OT. In the NIV it is translated 55
    times as grave, 5 times as death, 2 times as depths, 2 times as "depths of
    the grave." and once as "realm of death." The Zondervan NIV Exhaustive
    Concordance list the meaning of 'Sheol as, "grave; by extension, realm of
    death, deepest depths.' I see nothing here that would indicate anything
    other than that 'Sheol means the grave or some metaphorical equivalent. The
    same conclusion can be reached through a thorough exploration of the KJV.

    > Allen: "I am not so certain that the HS leads everyone to the =
    > beliefs they hold. Rather, they often hold their position because of
    traditions. I will
    > provide an example from an area I am familiar with -- the Sunday/Saturday
    > issue. Upon who authority does that Catholic church claim its =
    > doctrines are founded? The Holy Spirit? Or the traditions of men?"
    > Bob's comment: In fact, Sunday worship is attested in the NT, Acts
    > 20:7, where we learn that Paul and the Christians of Troas met on the
    > first day of the week "to break bread," i.e., to celebrate the Lord's
    > Supper.

    Two points:
    1. The disciples often broke bread on a daily basis: Acts 2:46 "Every day
    they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in
    their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts,"

    2. Jewish reckoning for a day goes from sunset to sunset. So when we read,
    "On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to
    the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking
    until midnight." (Acts 20:7), it means that the people got together
    Saturday night to listen to Paul speak because he was leaving them for
    Jerusalem the next day. He spoke till midnight, dealt with Eutychus, and
    then kept speaking until sunrise on Sunday. So the first breaking of bread
    occurred Saturday night after sunset.

    Acts 20:11, "Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After
    talking until daylight, he left."

    Then they ate again after midnight. This is not a typical worship meeting
    on Sunday. And what religious activity did Paul do during the day on
    Sunday? He walked a strenuous 20-plus miles to catch up with his

    This had nothing to do with worship services on the "Lords Day."

    >> In Rev. 1:10, Sunday is called "the Lord's Day."

    Sorry, Revelation 1:10 does not identify which day of the week upon which
    John was in the spirit. It merle says, "On the Lord's Day I was in the
    Spirit" But Jesus tells us exactly which day of the week is His day --
    "Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (Luke
    6:5) So it is obvious that John was in the spirit on the Sabbath, i.e.

    > Sunday ("the =
    > day of the Sun") came to be associated with Christ as the "Sun of =
    > Righteousness." It was not "the Catholic Church" but "the one, holy, =
    > catholic, and apostolic Church" (which the Catholic Church claims to =
    > embody, though not completely) that established Sunday as the Christian =
    > Sabbath, because it is the day of resurrection. Every Sunday service, =
    > ideally, is a celebration of the resurrection, and it was so intended by =
    > the early Church. Several of the church fathers, including Ignatius of =
    > Antioch and Justin Martyr make this point. Sunday as a day of rest came =
    > to be regulated by ecclesiastical and civil law by the 4th c. (this from =
    > Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 1558).

    What was the Biblical reason for the Sabbath? To point to the fact that God
    is our creator (Ex. 20:10). The Sabbath is a weekly celebration of the
    Creation. There is no evidence in the Bible that the Sabbath was to become
    instead a celebration of the resurrection. It sounds nice, but it has no
    Biblical basis. The story of how "the church" changed the Sabbath from a
    celebration of creation to a celebration of the resurrection is complex.
    The book, "From Sabbath, to Sunday" by Samuel Bacciochi, (his doctoral
    thesis acquired from the university at the Vatican (I can't remember the
    name right now), and holding the imprimatur) tells a very detailed and
    compelling story. But basically it comes down to the fact such a change is
    not authorized by the Bible. It happened out of connivance and pragmatism.

    > Then, on the issue of Sunday observance and the question of the =
    > relationship of Scripture and Tradition, Allen offers several statements =
    > evidently from Catholic spokespersons. I include one of these below:
    > We Catholics do not accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. Besides =
    > the bible we have the living Church, the authority of the Church, as a
    rule =
    > to guide us. We say, this Church instituted by Christ, to teach and guide
    > men through life, has the right to change the Ceremonial laws of the Old
    > Testament and hence, we accept her change of the Sabbath to Sunday. We
    > frankly say, "yes, the Church made this change, made this law, as she =
    > made many other laws, for instance, the Friday Abstinence, the unmarried
    > priesthood, the laws concerning mixed marriages, the regulation of =
    > Catholic marriages, and an thousand other laws.
    > Peter R. Tramer, Editor

    > Bob's comment: Here is the official position of the Roman Catholic =
    > Church on the relationship between Scripture and Tradition:

    > "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together =
    > and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from =
    > the same well-spring [i.e., the Word and the Holy Spirit], come together =
    > to form one thing, and move toward the same goal."
    > "As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of =
    > Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all =
    > revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and =
    > Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion =
    > and reverence." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 80, 82).

    Your official position quote and the quote I posted say the same thing. The
    scriptures cannot be taken on their own, they must be accompanied by and
    even interpreted by traditions of men (be they successors to the apostles or
    not). This is a very dangerous position to hold.

    >When every man =
    > and woman becomes his/her own interpreter, even claiming that they are =
    > guided by the Holy Spirit ("Whose spirit?" one is often tempted to ask), =
    > and ignores the accumulated tradition of the Church, ... then we have all
    sorts of weird =
    > doctrines and beliefs spring up.

    The Bible is to be it's on interpreter. You will indeed get weird notions
    when people try to be their own interpreters. The Holy Spirit leads us to
    understand the Bible as it interprets itself. We do not have to option to
    say "I believe the Bible says this because the Holy Spirit spoke to me. But
    rather, I believe the Bible says this because the Holy Spirit has shown
    where the Bible interprets itself here and here...."
    > My own Anglican tradition always accords primacy to Holy Scripture but =
    > also recognizes the importance of tradition and reason (the last usually =
    > includes experience). This "three-legged stool," was modified by the =
    > Wesleyan/Holiness tradition, which (drawing from Anglicanism) offers a =
    > "quadrilateral" (a more stable "table" perhaps) of Scripture, tradition, =
    > reason and experience (I take to mean the kind of personal experience that
    > Wesley had). However much we place Scripture foremost, these other =
    > elements are also important and contribute to our understanding of the =
    > revelation of God's will for creation, and in particular God's human =
    > creation.
    even Paul says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings
    (traditions, KJV) we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by
    letter." (2 Thes 2:15) But at the same time he commend those who doubted
    his very words. "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the
    Thessalonians, for they ... examined the Scriptures every day to see if what
    Paul said was true." The teaching and traditions of Paul and the apostles
    were to be measured up against the Bible. If they were found true then they
    could be accepted. The traditions cannot be used to interpret the Bible.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 18 2002 - 02:44:19 EDT