* LCG News * 2005 Feast of Tabernacles Sites * Listing of Living Church of God Congregations *Sunset Times for the U.S. * News of Those Once Affiliated with the Global COG * Prayer Requests * Official Living Church of God What's New? page.
Click Here for the COGwriter Home Page which has articles on various COGs and articles supporting beliefs of the Philadelphia portion of the Church of God.
12/14/05 a.m. Ex-CG's Jared O. has decided to post a third article taking shots at my Ignatius and the Sabbath article in an apparent attempt to fight against Sabbath-keeping. Surprisingly, here is his latest argument:
Thiel draws attention to the fact that the Greek word for “day” does not appear in the text under discussion. He writes:
While traveling in Greece recently, I was able to verify that the word in classic Greek translated “Lord’s Day” in the Didache and the Letter to the Magnesians, kuriaken, is not properly translated that way because the Greek word for “day” is not present in the text nor required by the context for either.
The problem here is that Thiel has not considered that very early on in Christian history, the Greek word for “day” (hemera) came to be ellided in the term “the Lord’s Day” (kyriake hemera). Thus, Christians writing or speaking Greek would not have to say kyriake hemera. They could just say kyriake, and hemera would be understood. As WCG writer Michael Morrison explained:
Although a few Christians observed the Sabbath, Sunday was more distinctively Christian. It became the day on which believers worshipped the Lord, and the day became known in the second century as “the Lord’s day [kuriake hemera].” The term was so well known that the word for “day” became unnecessary — if a Christian wrote about the kuriake, readers would understand that Sunday was meant. This term therefore gives additional evidence that Sunday was the Christian day of worship in the second century.
Next, Morrison provides a very helpful survey of the early written testimony of the term kyriake as a reference to the Lord’s Day. His survey is well worth quoting in full (see Morrison’s footnotes also):
In the late first century, John used kuriake hemera in Rev 1:10, but the meaning there is debated. In the early second century, Ignatius used kuriake alone, and textual variants cause the meaning to be debatable...
Clement of Alexandria (c. 190) also gives clear evidence that kuriake meant the eighth day, Sunday, and he spoke of “keeping” the Lord’s day. He quoted a Valentinian Gnostic who equated the kuriake with the ogdoad, the eighth heaven. “The same identification of kuriake, the eighth day, with the ogdoad, the eighth heaven, is found in the antignostic Epistula Apostolorum [also second century].”
In summary, evidence for the use of “Lord’s day” is clear for the latter half of the second century, but it is less clear for the first half.
Careful readers of the above will note that his proof is that the term `κυριακήν came to be ellided as Sunday without the Greek term day, but that this probably did not happen until the latter half of the second century. Well Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians and the Didache were (according to almost all scholars) written no later than near the beginning of the second century and thus this argument for those writings is irrelevant and false.
As my article makes clear, although a version of `κυριακήν now does mean Sunday in modern Greek, as the meaning did change, that change did not occur in the early second century as most Sunday advocates hope (they hope this because otherwise they have no "proof" of early Sunday worship by those profess Christ--their scholars have to admit that Sunday worship was actually based on eighth day gnostic arguments and the position of early heretics--something that they would prefer not to publicize, but have to refer to as it is their only "proof").
The simple fact is that the New Testament shows almost nothing about Sunday, which is why the anti-Sabbath crowd prefers to use mistranslations of early second century documents as their primary proof of Sunday-keeping. But even their "scholars" must admit that the argument is weak.
The two times that the first day of the week are mentioned outside the Gospel accounts do not in any way support Sunday worship.
The first is in Acts 20:7 where Paul stayed for dinner after the Sabbath and preached until past midnight because he was going to travel on Sunday morning (not preach then).
And the second is where Paul says that they should not gather up goods for an offering when he is there (presumably the Sabbath), but that the first day of the week would be a better time to do that.
Although Revelation 1:10 is sometimes considered a Sunday verse, it says nothing about any day of the week, nor does it discuss worship for Christians then. And even Jared's quote from WCG's M. Morrison confirms that Sunday advocates really cannot claim that as proof. (More information on this verse can be found in the article is Revelation 1:10 Discussing the Lord's Day or the Day of the Lord?).
I probably will later write an article mentioning every time Sunday is mentioned in the Bible (thanks for the idea Jared), so those who actually believe they are to get doctrine from the Bible will realize that Sunday worship has no biblical support. And that those that rely on anti-COG arguments simply prefer Traditions of Men to the Bible.
I perhaps should add that I find it odd that Jared quoted WCG's Michael Morrison as his positions on Sabbath-keeping are so easy to disprove. For example, in my article on the Location of the Early Church, I wrote the following:
When Polycarp was taken and killed, it was reported to and by the Smyrnaeans that this occurred on "the day of a great Sabbath". [45] Noted scholar Kirsopp Lake states, “Polycarp's martyrdom was on Saturday.”[46]
This clearly demonstrates that those in Smyrna (a Gentile filled area) were still keeping the Sabbath around 156 A.D. [47] Sabbath-keeping in Asia Minor was publicly still going on to at least 364 A.D. or else the Eastern (Orthodox) Church would not have convened a Council in Laodicea to excommunicate any who rested on the seventh day. This still did not stop all Sabbath keeping.
Around 404 A.D. Jerome noted, “the believing Jews do well in observing the precepts of the law, i.e….keeping the Jewish Sabbath…there exists a sect among… the synagogues of the East, which is called the sect of the Minei, and is even now condemned by the Pharisees. The adherents to this sect are known commonly as Nazarenes; they believe in Christ the Son of God, born of , the Virgin Mary; and they say that He who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again, is the same as the one in whom we believe”—yet, Jerome considered them to be part of “a most pestilential heresy”. [48]
But it was not just Jewish Christians keeping the Sabbath as Sozomen reported in the mid-5th Century, “The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria” [49]. This shows that Sabbath keeping continued in parts of Asia Minor through the time of Sardis and into what is sometimes considered to be the Pergamos era.
These Sabbath observances clearly disagree with a position in an article by Michael Morrison of the current WCG, who quotes the writer Maxwell, "Many Christians were already honoring Sunday near the beginning of the second century.... Evidence is very strong...that many if not most Christians had given up the Sabbath as early as A.D. 130.... Just as Sunday observance came into practice by early in the second century, so among Gentile Christians Sabbath observance went out of practice by early in the second century...Maxwell, op. cit., pp. 136, 142" [50].
Thus any one who is interested in the truth and has actually studied early church history on this matter recognizes the error of Michael Morrison's position citing Maxwell. The citations alluded to above are in the article Location of the early Church. (K.S. Latourette's books on the history of the church also state that Gentiles kept the seventh day Sabbath past the time that M. Morrison indicates--I plan to add that later to that article.)
Perhaps I should mention that about the only "evidence" about Sunday, prior the heretic Justin, the 2nd destruction of Jerusalem, the gnostic Epistle of Barnabas, and the gnostic Gospel of Peter, is that Irenaeus. Irenaeus, around 180 A.D., wrote that Anicetus stated that the Roman bishop Sixtus observed Passover on Sunday instead of on the biblical date of Nisan 14 which Polycarp and those in Asia Minor observed. And according to Polycarp, and later Polycrates, (neither of whom accepted the Roman instituted change) the 14th teaching was from John and the Gospels. And while it is possible that weekly Sunday services were started by Sixtus, there exists no actual evidence of it that I have seen. All the available evidence shows that it was due to biblical compromise and gnostic influence.
12/13/05 a.m. A reader sent in these quotes and comments from the Church of God (Seventh Day) magazine Bible Advocate, December, 2005 issue focusing on prophecy:
"...we have reserved the fun and challenge of prophetic topics for our December issue". - page 3
Sadly, they understand so little. Surprisingly, they did understand one thing... "The messages to the seven churches [Revelation] (chs. 2, 3), for example, give instruction and warning to the church in every era". - page 13
From the article on "Apocalyptic Prophecy and Revelation" (book of Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc)...
"Apocalyptic should be understood by seeking its meaning to original readers". "We should not expect apocalyptic literature to give us a timeline of events, either past or future. Neither should we attempt to give specific meaning to each detail, metaphor, or figure of speech in the text. Like impressionistic art, if you get too close, it is confusing or meaningless. It is better to step back and see a powerful image". "Rather, try to understand the primary, emotional message and appreciate the beauty and power of the imagery in which it is expressed". - page 12 - 13
"What we must be careful not to do is to spend too much time speculating as to how any of our own contemporary events might be fitted into the pictures of the Revelation. The book was not intended to prophesy the existence of Red China, for example, nor to give us literal details of the conclusion of history". - page 13
While it is true that the messages in Revelation 2 & 3 have meaning throughout time, it is also true that they have a specific message for the churches chronologically. Both CG7 and UCG used to emphasize the latter, but now emphasize the former. Three articles of interest may be:
Church of God, Seventh Day
Differences between the Living Church of God and United Church of God
Do the Churches of Revelation 2 & 3 Matter?
On other matters, the Sep-Oct 2005 edition of The Journal arrived last night. In it, Geoff Nielsen claims to have written something proving that HWA was the Elijah. Although it contains a lot of assertions, the article simply does not do that. The first "proof" is that HWA said so, but it omits some of what HWA actually taught on the subject. For example, in HWA’s sermon, given on the last day of Unleavened Bread in April 1985, he stated the following,
“You know there is a prophecy about John the Baptist, while the prophecy is talking about Elijah. But if you read in {HWA apparently meant “about”} Elijah {“in Malachi”} 3 and verses 1-5, it is talking, not about someone preparing the way for Christ’s first coming, but when Christ comes to set on the throne of the earth and remove Satan. You read verse 1 and you can apply that to John the Baptist. But you read on through verses 2,3,4, and 5 and you find its talking about the second coming of Christ. The things He will do then, but He did none of those things that are in verse 2,3,4, and 5 when He came the first time. Now John the Baptist did fulfill verse 1. Even Jesus said so. Jesus said that he had come in the spirit and power of Elijah. Was he Elijah? No he wasn’t. They asked John the Baptist, ‘Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘No I am not’. He wasn’t a liar. He knew the truth. He was not Elijah. Am I Elijah? No, definitely not! Now I met Elijah. Elijah has come to me and announced that he was Elijah, but I showed him the way out of the office. I did not believe him”.
Furthermore, here are a few other points to consider:
Could There Be A Future Elijah?
Both the Bible and the writings of HWA’s WCG provide specific support for the idea that there may be a future fulfillment of the Elijah prophesies.
Here is the first historical quote I found in WCG’s literature, “The Work of Elijah 1. Did Christ affirm that ‘Elijah’ must come before His own return? Matt. 17:11…John the Baptist did a one-man work. But today God works through the Body of Christ – the Church composed of many members (ep4. 4:12, 16) After Christ’s ministry on this earth, it was no more a single individual that did God’s Work (through the power of His Spirit), but the BODY of Christ…Today the ‘body’ of Christ – the entire CHURCH OF GOD through its voice, its prayers, its tithes and offerings and its various other functions – is heralding Christ’s eminent return (Matt. 25:6)…And the hearts of both parents and children are being turned back to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is what the ‘Philadelphia’ Era of God’s Church is doing today!...And it is this Church which will be taken to a temporary place of safety just as Elijah was taken to a place prepared by God” (Armstrong HW, editor. Lesson 53. Ambassador College Correspondence Course. 1969). Hence, it was originally HWA’s position that the Philadelphia Era of the Church of God fulfilled the Elijah role.
Later, he seemed to feel that it could possibly be just one person.
Herbert Armstrong wrote this, "Also Malachi 4:5-6 pictures the Elijah to come at the very end of the Church age" (Mystery of the Ages. 1985, p. 349).
The longer it takes from the death of HWA until it is time to flee (and it has been nearlyu 20 years now), the more likely it will be that there could be one other than HWA to fulfill the Elijah role (with another option perhaps being that the entire Philadelphia portion of the COG could be fulfilling that role).
HWA also taught that the Philadelphians would continue to get the Gospel out right up until it was time to flee to a place of safety—and we have not fled yet! It is interest to note that even Ronald Weinland has written, “Today, the name Herbert W. Armstrong is not well known on the earth”. This is correct and it seems an unusual burden to require that people new to the COGs need to profess that HWA was Elijah—especially since there is no evidence that after Jesus’ death, the New Testament Church taught that one needed to believe that John the Baptist (or anyone else for that matter) was Elijah.
HWA wrote, “Jesus shall come, SOON NOW, to RESTORE ALL THINGS! He did NOT restore all things when he first came. John the Baptist did not "restore all things." But the one who was to "restore all things" just before the "day of the Lord" and preparing the way for Christ's second coming, was YET to come, in the future, as Jesus said. Now what are the "all things" to be RESTORED? "Restitution" means restore to a former state or condition” (Armstrong HW. Brethren & Co-Worker Letter, August 24, 1982).
Note that HWA states Elijah comes just before the day of the Lord—an event that still has not occurred, hence some additional restoration may be possible.
More information can be found in the article titled The Elijah Heresies.
12/12/05 a.m. The Dec 2005 edition of The Philadelphia Trumpet arrived Saturday. Dennis Leap wrote the following:
For centuries, until the so-called Age of Enlightenment—also known as the Age of Reason—the Western world accepted without question the historical accuracy of the account of the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the history of the patriarchs and the Exodus from Egypt. However, in the 17th and 18th centuries, European intellectuals began to claim that only through human reason could true knowledge be obtained. Rather than the Bible, scientific reasoning became the source of authority—the ultimate judge of all truth. The Bible came under direct attack.
Then in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory of evolution—the fable of a creation without a Creator—and higher Bible criticism spawned by anti-Semite German rationalists, came on the scene and succeeded in completely removing God and the Bible from the picture. German Bible critics argued that the Bible was unhistorical and had no reliable basis in fact. They stated that the Bible was merely Jewish fable and folklore fabricated in the 5th and 6th centuries b.c.—in other words, that most of the Old Testament books were not contemporary records, but rather had been written centuries after the events took place. Many scholars came to deny the existence of Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Solomon...The scholars’ main attack on Bible history in the early 20th century was that no secular records existed to provide evidence of the Flood, the Exodus, or the lives of David and Solomon. Many claimed that Moses could never have written the first five books of the Bible, since writing had not been invented at that time. But when the curious, energetic men and women dug up the past, these commonly held ideas were proved to be without foundation.
Modern archaeology has challenged the world of education to admit that the Bible is factual. Solid, documented evidence outside the Bible record confirms events and persons that were at one time considered to be suspect or plain false.Still, some people work tirelessly to discredit the Bible as a God-inspired record of critically important history. Some have stubbornly overlooked overwhelming evidence. Others have purposely misinterpreted the facts to hold on to pet theories. Are we surprised? Not really.
Actually, I am not surprised either. And that is also true about those who do not want to understand about the New Testament canon or the Sabbath as I posted yesterday.
12/11/05 a.m. I have been updating my article on the New Testament Canon. Here is one updated section:
Polycarp of Smyrna was well known for holding fast to the teachings he received from the Apostle John. And that would logically include the knowledge of the entire NT.
Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians (circa 135 A.D.) is written in the manner of one quite familiar with the New Testament as it starts out similar to some of Paul's writings.
And according to the portion of Charles Leach's book, Our Bible: How We Got It (1898) where he discusses Polycarp's epistle, "In the whole Epistle, which occupies but ten minutes to read, we find the language of Matthew, Luke, John, and the Acts of the Apostles; of the Epistle of Peter; and of Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Timothy, and Titus. Here, then, we get a link in our chain which connects us to the actual writers of the New Testament, and assures us, beyond all possibility of doubt, that the contents of our New Testament were in the hands of the men who lived before the last of the Apostles were dead."
This clearly demonstrates that Polycarp had to have had a complete NT canon. Why? Because Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is so short, that to actually allude to more than half of the accepted books of the NT, he really would have needed to be familiar with the entire New Testament.
In addition, Polycarp made it clear that those he wrote to had the correct Bible otherwise he would not have written:
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted. It is declared then in these Scriptures, "Be ye angry, and sin not," and, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath." (Polycarp. Letter to the Philippians. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1as edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885).
Note that Polycarp here is quoting a verse that is in the New Testament.
Furthermore, it was one of Polycarp's successors (Melito) who listed the books of the Old Testament around 170 A.D. Melito wrote, "I accordingly proceeded to the East, and went to the very spot where the things in question were preached and took place; and, having made myself accurately acquainted with the books of the Old Testament, I have set them down" (Reid G. Canon of the Old Testament. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight.Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
As the scholar Wace points out, "The expressions "the Old Books," "the Books of the O.T.," shew clearly that the church of Melito's time had a New Testament canon".
Furthermore Polycrates, a successor of Melito and Polycarp, around 195 A.D. taught:
I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture (Polycrates. Eusebius. Church History. Book V, Chapter 24).
Thus, it appears obvious that history also supports that the true Church of God knew the proper NT canon from the beginning. It may be of interest to note, that although the Catholics of Rome consider both Polycarp and Melito to have been important saints, neither one of them went along with the decision to abandon the Passover on the 14th of Nisan to a Sunday as the Roman Bishops did (nor did Polycrates). Hence there was a clear distinction between those who were part of the faithful Church in Asia Minor and those who went along with those in Rome (more information can be found in the article, Location of the Early Church, Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome).
The simple truth is that the Church in Asia Minor did have the canon to both the Old and the New Testaments (more information can be found in the article The Old Testament Canon).
Thus the Da Vinci Code and those who accept the Roman Catholic view of the canon have overlooked the facts of history as they have tended to ignore the fact that the faithful church was based in Asia Minor in the second century. The complete article, titled the New Testament Canon, is available online.
On other matters, apparently the eX-CG host Jared Olar has decided to spend a lot of time trying to discount my article on Ignatius. And at least he read it this time (he criticized it before in a long article without doing that--which shows where he is coming from). Anyway, he did bring up a couple of points that I have decided to clarify on the actual article, so I would like to thank him for his assistance in that way. But here I would like to quote a couple of parts of his writing:
Now, when Thiel said his translation was not grammatical, he wasn’t joking, because “no longer keeping sabbaths contrariwise in accordance with the Lord’s way of life” is meaningless gibberish....
Thus:. . . no longer [Judaically] keeping sabbaths, but living in accordance with the Lord’s way of life . . . There—now we have a translation that makes sense in English...
Thiel’s Greek text does not have the word zoen...
(By the way, I can’t help but wonder if Thiel’s anonymous female scholar of “classic Greek” is Rosangela Lira, whose position on the proper translation of Magnesians seems to resemble the position of Thiel’s anonymous scholar. But I also wonder why Thiel didn’t tell us the name of his scholar—it doesn’t elicit confidence in his hypothesis that, because of Thiel’s silence, we are unable to tell if Thiel’s scholar even exists.)...
But what of the proposal of Thiel’s anonymous scholar that the word “Judaically” ought to be understood as modifying the verb sabbatizontes? On this point, it is interesting that, once again, Rosangela Lira advocates a position that seems to be the same as the position advocated by Thiel’s anonymous female scholar.
Thiel and Lira might be able to remove “the Lord’s Day” from this passage of Magnesians, but there is nothing they can do to avoid the fact that, whatever textual apparatus one uses, St. Ignatius unarguably said that when it comes to keeping the Sabbath, Christians do not have to concern themselves with what is and isn’t “work.”
He is essentially correct that without the addition of the term Judaically the statement from Ignatius is meaningless gibberish, and that is why I contacted a scholar (not Lira) whose doctorate was in classic koine Greek (the female scholar I met with is affiliated with the Greek Orthodox Church).
Actually, I never heard of Rosangela Lira or his earlier reference to Olsen. Thus it is of interest to note that according to Jared, we all came to similar conclusions (note to Gavin--thus my scholarship is not as novel as you suggested--just consistent with the findings of others, even those I had not heard of or read).
Jared's basic premise seems to be that since he knows no Greek, that I have made specific as well as textual errors. However weak my Greek may be (which is precisely why I personally consulted with other experts--which he apparently has not done), the fact is that the point of my article is correct: Ignatius's writings DO NOT provide proof of Sunday observance. Also, as far as text goes, I relied on Michael Holmes 2004 edition of the text--the fact that I used perhaps the latest version that has undergone textual criticism by modern scholars is proof that my textual choice has not somehow inferior to others.
Regarding his last point, he is almost correct. Christians do not need to worry about the additional legalistic restrictions that the Mishna and other Judaic sources added regarding the Sabbath. And, that is what Jesus taught as well.
It remains important to realize the simple fact that when Ignatius used the term κυριακήν, it did not mean Sunday (Lord's day). And one does not have to be an expert in koine Greek to prove that, all one needs to be is interested in learning the truth. My article remains available on Ignatius and the Sabbath.
12/10/05 a.m. ICG's Mark Armstrong reported:
we did broadcast a program on the subject of Christmas, which has become the subject of a certain amount of controversy again this year. I’ve even heard the anti-Christmas faction (which also works to exclude God, the Ten Commandments and any standard of morality from the public square) denounce the holiday on the basis of its pagan origins. Talk about confusion!
I plan to add some historical information about Christmas shortly.
Here is some research about Cletus, the alleged third bishop of Rome:
Cletus/Anacletus
Here are some of the Roman Catholic claims about Cletus:
3. CLETUS OR ANACLETUS, ST. (76-88)..He made dispositions for the consecration of bishops and dictated the norms for ecclesiastical dress, prohibiting them from letting their beards and hair grow. He had a small chapel built over the tomb of St. Peter which was the nucleus on which Constantine erected the first great basilica in 324...(Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, p. 1).
Interestingly, The Catholic Encyclopedia admits this regarding Cletus/Anacletus:
That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91 (Campbell T.J. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Anacletus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
This means that statements such as that he dictated the norms for ecclesiastical dress, etc. are simply unfounded.
Furthermore, since according to the Liber Pontificalis it was bishop Cornelius who supposedly moved the body of Peter to its present location, then it is not possible that Anacletus could have built a small chapel over the tomb of St. Peter that eventually became the basilica. Here is one written account (with the Latin afterwards):
Liber Pontificalis (6th century AD), 22: Cornelius [Pope 251-3]: "In his time, at the request of a certain lady Lucina, he took away the bodies of the apostles Saints Peter and Paul up out of the Catacombs [i.e. the spot Ad Catacumbas, where they had hurriedly been deposited after the fracas with the easterners] at night (in fact first of all [i.e. before their placement in the cemetery Ad Catacumbas] the blessed Lucina took the body of St Paul [qu. from where?] and put it on her estate on the Ostian Way close to the place where he was beheaded; the blessed bishop Cornelius took the body of St Peter [qu. from where?] and put it close to the place where he was impaled [meaning originally, in Jerusalem, but later the location was understood to be Rome]), to among the bodies of the holy bishops at the temple of Apollo on the Mons Aureus, on the Vatican at Nero's palace, on 29th June." This translation presumes the words inter corpora "to among the bodies" etc. at the end of the entry complement the verb levavit "took away ... up out of" earlier in the passage and that the phrase primum quidem ... crucificus est "in fact first of all ... where he was impaled" is either an original or or a later interpolation. Any other understanding leaves it unexplained whither the bodies were taken after they were removed from Ad Catacumbas. "IV. Hic temporibus suis, rogatus a quadam matrona Lucina, corpora apostolorum beati Petri et Pauli de Catacumbas levavit noctu: primum quidem corpus beati Pauli accepto beata Lucina posuit in praedio suo, via Ostense, iuxta locum ubi decollatus est; beati Petri accipit corpus beatus Cornelius episcopus et posuit iuxta locum ubi crucificus est, inter corpora sanctorum episcoporum, in templum Apollinis, in monte Aureum, in Vaticanum palatii Neroniani, III kal. iul. (The above is derived from Edmundson G. The Church in Rome in the First Century by THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1913 at http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/pt2_first_church_rome.htm 11/19/05).
The Catholic Encyclopedia teaches this about Anacletus:
Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the "Catalogus Liberianus", the "Carmen contra Marcionem" and the "Liber Pontificalis", all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the "Catalogus Felicianus" even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenroether (Hist. de l'église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Dëllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that "they are, without doubt, the same person"and that "the 'Catalogue of Liberius' merits little confidence before 230." Duchesne, " Origines chretiennes ", ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his "Origines", says "we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus -- Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology" (Campbell T.J. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. Pope St. Anacletus. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).
This causes a severe dilemma for the Roman Catholic Church. If there was both a Cletus and an Anacletus, it would suggest that Clement did not know Peter--and this is a major claim of the Roman Catholic Church, that he did. But if there is not both a Cletus and an Anacletus, then some of their earliest historical documents are riddled with errors. And if all that is known for certain is that Anicetus was bishop of Rome in 154 (but the later book from Lopes says not until 155 A.D.), why does the Roman Church suggest that it is certain about its early origins?
I am working on a detailed article about what Rome appears to teach and what its scholars actually admit about early church history that will be posted at a later time.
12/09/05 a.m. In a new article titled Where are We Now in Bible Prophecy? The Road to Armageddon and the Coming of the MESSIAH TPM's W. Dankenbring has laid out yet another end-time scenario:
This year – from Sept-Oct.2005 to Sept.-Oct.2006 – this very year in which we find ourselves, today – may well constitute the very year which begins the countdown to ARMAGEDDON and the COMING OF THE MESSIAH, seven years from now – which seems most likely to occur in the year 2012 A.D.!
Essentially he claims that the US military represents the white horse of Revelation 6, and that this nation (and its allies) fulfills the first seal in 2006, that China may invade Taiwan in 2007 as the red horse fulfillment, and the Day of the Lord begins in 2012.
I do not believe that the US is the white horse of Revelation. Nor is any invasion of Taiwan likely in 2007 (perhaps I should mention that China is to host the Olympics in 2008).
TPM has a history of prophetic speculation. Some of its earlier scenarios are included in the article Teachings of Triumph Prophetic Ministries.
12/08/05 a.m. Barnabas Ministries reported:
Early on Nov. 29th some popular, non-religious (non-COG related) Internet sites decided to post a link directly to the BibleStudy.org page on which the calendar order form was placed. Emails began pouring in at such a fast rate that 774 calendar requests were received between 9am to 5pm! Before the ad was removed at 10:30pm on the 29th due to high demand, an amazing 1,130 people had submitted requests for the Ten Commandments calendar!
In only seven days a total of 1,315 calendar requests came in not only from the U.S. and Canada, but also from countries such as:
Algeria, China, Croatia, Ghana, Iceland, India, Kenya, New Zealand, Pakistan, Poland, Sri Lanka and Venezuela.
On other matters, the Roman Catholics claim quite a bit about a church leader named Linus. Actually, it is through him that they claim that all their popes descended. Here is some of the research I have uncovered about this
The Liber Pontificalis (Book of Pontiffs) teaches this about Peter and his spiritual successor:
He consecrated St. Clement as bishop and entrusted the cathedra and the whole management of the church to him, saying: ‘As the power of government, that of binding and loosing, was handed to me by my Lord Jesus Christ, so I entrust it to you; ordain those who are to deal with various cases and execute the church’s affairs; do not be caught up in the cares of the world but ensure you are completely free for prayer and preaching to the people’ (Book of the Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) 2nd edition. Translation by Raymond Davis. Liverpool University Press - Translated Texts for Historians, Liverpool, 2001, p.2).
Yet, the Roman Catholic Church does not seem to accept the above as it currently claims that Linus was Peter's actual successor. Nor is there any early literature that specifically states that the cathedra went to Linus (Irenaeus, for example, never mentions it--the first mention seems to be in an anonymous poem "Against the Marcionites" written circa 267 A.D.--about 200 years after Peter's death!).
Furthermore, it is of interest to state that some Catholics understand that the New Testament provides no support for the idea that one of the apostles appointed someone to be "bishop of Rome", as the shown in the following quote:
We must conclude that the New Testament provides no basis for the notion that before the apostles died, they ordained one man for each of the churches they founded..."Was there a Bishop of Rome in the First Century?"...the available evidence indicates that the church in Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than by a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 80,221-222).
Linus
Linus is claimed to have been the first bishop of Rome to have taken over from Peter. But if Clement was given the cathedra, then it is clear that the bishop of Rome did not receive it as Clement was not believed to have been the bishop of Rome until decades after Linus's death--and if it was given to Clement, then Rome itself would have no reason to have dominance in the true church.
Anyway, here are some claims about him:
2. LINUS, ST. (67-76)...He was the first to take up the inheritance of St. Peter...He made disposition for women to be admitted to the holy places and attend functions with their heads covered...(Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997, p. 1).
Yet, here is some of what The Catholic Encyclopedia records about Linus:
The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany, and that his father's name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree "in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter", that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the "Liber Pontificalis" from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (11:5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and Irenaeus (1. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr. (Kirsch J.P. Transcribed by Gerard Haffner. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Copyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).
Furthermore, the basis for Linus' inclusion, is that of Irenaeus, and Irenaeus does not state that Linus acquired any inheritance from Peter, but from that the of Apostles (plural). But this is nowhere recorded or hinted about in scripture.
This is also admited by Catholics:
According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those that followed as successors of Peter more than of Paul (Sullivan F.A. From Apostles to Bishops: the development of the episcopacy in the early church. Newman Press, Mahwah (NJ), 2001, p. 148).
Thus it appears that many have been misled about Linus and any succession.
The main claim to authority that the Roman Catholics have is on Linus taking over from Peter. The truth is that the COG position that the primary leadership of the early (1st and 2nd centuries at least) church was in Asia Minor and not Rome is born out by what even Catholic scholars will sometimes admit. More information on the early church can be found in the article Location of the Early Church.
12/07/05 a.m. The November 2005 issue of United News finally arrived last night. It contained its last financial statement. So, I have updated the following:
Brief Financial Comparison of US Income (Both Based on Audited Statements)
For its fiscal year ending 6/30/05 UCG grossed $20,087,576. It spent 4,077,687 (20.3%) for 'public proclamation'; it spent 3,977,357 for managing its meetings and 'home office' (19.8%); and 11,500,475 (57.3%) for the field ministry/local churches/FOT/International support, and increased reserves by 532,057. For its fiscal year ending 12/31/04 LCG grossed 9,611,148 and spent 3,810,607 on public proclamation, 646,799 on HQ administration, 4,718,354 to 'feed the flock' and increased reserves by 435,388.
If you gave $100.00 to the United Church of God or the Living Church of God, here is where your money went:............................................................................United Church of God........Living Church of God
1st Commission to Proclaim the Gospel to the World.............$20.30....................................$39.65
2nd Commission to Feed the Flock (and Field Ministry).......... 57.25.....................................49.09
Headquarters/Home Office......................................................19.80...................................... 6.73
Change in Reserves..................................................................2.65....................................... 4.53 Total...................................................................................$100.00..................................$100.00
This is a major improvement for UCG and marks the first time in its 10 year history that it reported that it spent more money to proclaim the gospel to the world than it does on its own governance and administration. An earlier comparison is available in the article Differences between the Living Church of God and United Church of God
I went with LCG because of Gospel and governance. It is interesting that UCG spent about 3 times as high a percentage on governance than LCG does (and over 6 times as much in actual cash, UCG spent $3,977,357 vs. LCG's 646,799). Which form of governance is more cost-effective? Which form places the higher priority on proclaiming the Gospel? With half the income, LCG spends about the same amount in actual cash as UCG to proclaim the Gospel. LCG also produces nearly twice the number of magazines (Tomorrow's World vs. Good News) on a per member basis than UCG does. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Click here to go back to the COGwriter home page
Volume 9, issue 19