text:
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
The Papacy as "the Antichrist"
73 comments:
- David Atkins said...
Hugo, you're just asking for it, aren't you? ;~)
- Wednesday, September 09, 2009
- tomheadley said...
On reading the Catholic response I see they claim because they "say" that Jesus is the Christ that eliminates them as the anti-christ. What if what they "do" and "say" are not compatible. For instance if I say that I love my wife and then go with another woman do I REALLY love my wife? There's a phrase that goes "saying don't make it so".
- Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tom, Adventists say they are Christians. But if they sin then that means they aren't? You have heard of the wheat and the tares? Catholics confess Jesus as Lord. Some may not live that out, but that only makes them bad Christians not anti-Christs.
Fr. Jim - Thursday, September 10, 2009
- David Atkins said...
You're right, Tom, "saying don't make it so". That's why Catholics tend to focus their lives more toward helping humanity wherever they can. The Catholic Church does have the largest charitable organization in the world, after all. And they do all of this in imitation of Christ who was a "Man who went around doing good". That's what it actually means to be a Christian, actually doing what Christ did.
Blessings to you, friend! - Thursday, September 10, 2009
- Clement said...
Hi Tom,
If you go with another woman can you not make it up with your wife?
When we commit serious sin, can we not be forgiven?
Yes, all Christians (as the name implies) are to be Christ-like in everything we do. That means, denying ourselves, taking up our cross and following him. Where? To death, to suffering and total self-sacrifice, so that in sharing His sufferings we might also share in His Glory.
I have found in Catholicism the full understanding of what this means. We are not shy away from suffering, but to accept it with joy! For we make up in our suffering what is lacking in Christ's! What a statement! Luckily it is biblical (St Paul).
I digress. Sorry, got a bit excited!
Much love,
Clement - Thursday, September 10, 2009
- tomheadley said...
I have no problem with accepting that Catholic people are Christians. I never implied that THEY are the antichrists. I applaud the charity work and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. The issue though in this post was about antichrist. Part of the problem with this term is that most people see an image in their minds created by Hollywood. I believe the scriptures refer a religious authority or authorities that contradict what Christ taught. The fact that the Church states that it has authority to change what Christ taught by word and example places it in opposition to Christ. The best example that I see although there are also others is the Church's claim to have changed the 7th day Sabbath to Sunday.
- Thursday, September 10, 2009
Tom, I think this whole post was just for you. Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's Day and the Apostles followed his teaching. You don't have to be Jewish to be Christian. That was the first great battle in the Church. Your side lost to men like Peter and Paul. The Catholic Church does have authority because Christ founded it and gave it authority, not to change the truth but to protect the truth. In fact it was the Catholic Church that gave you the scriptures. You're welcome. It is up to you to prove that your prophet EG White had the authority to change what the Apostolic Church has always taught.
Fr. Jim - Thursday, September 10, 2009
- Clement said...
Hi Tom,
Welcome to the blog, it is great to be able to talk to you! I hope you will bear with us, and stick around for what tend to be lengthy and involved discussions!
You said:
"...the Church states that it has authority to change what Christ taught by word and example.."
Tom, I have to start by being honest and tell you this is categorically untrue. The Catholic church and the papacy make many claims but one of them is not the authority to alter Christ's teaching, in fact quite the opposite, the Church claims to infallibly hold to and defend the Gospel and preach it to the ends of the earth as the apostles were commanded to do.
The Sabbath / Sunday issue is particularly pertinent for Adventists, of course, and it is a tricky one because of the lack of strong scriptural evidence on either side. Hugo (who hosts this blog) has written a number of essays on his website (http://www.catholicadventist.com/Answers/index.html) and there are a many posts and comments on this blog relating to the matter.
The short of it is, the Catholic church follows the example of Christ and His apostles. The Church was born on a Sunday (Pentecost), many of Christ's resurrection appearances were on Sundays, and the historical writings of the early church right back to the Didache (written according to modern scholarship in around AD 70) confirm that Christians have always met on a Sunday, the Lord's Day, to celebrate and give thanks (Eucharist in Greek) for the resurrection (which was on a Sunday), as this was the day of the New Creation, and the source of our hope, joy and salvation!
We are under the New Covenant, certain laws, practices and sacrifices have been fulfilled, we have come to a new and greater hope!
I appreciate there is an awful lot to unpack here, especially if you are hearing all these things for the first time, so please do look into it, ask questions here and we will try and answer them!!
God bless you, Tom.
Clement - Thursday, September 10, 2009
- Hugo Mendez said...
Tom, et al:
The Johannine epistles, speaking of the antichrist, emphasize what an antichrist 'confesses' (1 Jn. 2:23; 4:2-3; 2 Jn. 1:7) and the 'teachings' he opposes (2 Jn. 1:9-10; 1 Jn. 2:27). It is obvious the antichrist is identified by what he says, what he teaches, what he confesses... that is, his doctrine.
The Catholic Church emphatically does not embrace the characteristic doctrines** of "antichrist."
We do not need to speak of actions; the text does not speak of them. - Thursday, September 10, 2009
In 1 John, John makes clear that there is an antichrist that is in the future (coming), but that antichrists have already appeared (have come) in his day, and that the spirit behind antichrist is already at work in certain false teachers.
The man who is "the antichrist" in 2:22 is not indicated by John as being the predicted antichrist. This man, who speaks lies about Christ, is not coming, but is currently causing problems [in fact he/or they have recently left John's congregations (2:19)]. John is not conflating the two kinds of antichrists (future and present), nor is he contradicting himself. John always has a clear sense of many antichrists (who can be 'the antichrist' in their claims), and a future antichrist, which his congregations have been warned about.
Who is this antichrist who is to come in the future and that the churches have been warned about? It's the 'little horn' of Daniel, it's the 'man of lawlessness,' of Paul and it's the 'beast' of Revelation. Paul, like John, is clear that his churches are to look out for a coming future falling away. The both contend against many false teachers in their own day but also clearly see the real danger as in the future. Also, the figures of the little horn, the man of lawlessness and the beast, reveal intertextual correspondence, and a clear mimicking of Christ, and are aptly called 'antichrist.'
The flexibility, and at least some perceived continuity, between the many antichrists and the predicted future antichrist shows that this title is capable of wider use than the restrictive use you seek to make of it. There are still many antichrists, but there is only one predicted antichrist who was to come. The Bible does indeed give us precedent for both uses.
ant - Friday, September 11, 2009
- David Atkins said...
But ant, John is very specific and clear about the characteristics of "antichrist", whether future or present. And based upon those very limited and specific characteristics, the Papacy cannot therefore be "antichrist".
To apply to "antichrist" the characteristics of the "little horn", "the beast", and the "man of lawlessness" is to conflate very different contextual terms from different authors, except perhaps for the Revelation. However, it should be pointed out that John, who wrote Revelation, never once uses his term "antichrist" to identify any of the characteristics of the "beast". This would seem to indicate that the two are not necessarily connected in his mind. Therefore, it would seem inappropriate to conflate the two terms since John himself does not do this.
Blessings! - Friday, September 11, 2009
- Clement said...
Just a thought:
With Peter being the first pope, can the pope really be the antichrist?
Clement - Friday, September 11, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Clement,
I believe the common rebuttal would be to simply deny that Peter was ever historically a bishop of a Church, let alone of Rome.
Blessings! - Friday, September 11, 2009
"Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's Day and the Apostles followed his teaching."
Really? Where does Jesus say that?
Catholic authorities through the centuries have always said the church changed this, in the post-apostolic period, by its own authority. - Friday, September 11, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Anonymous,
I believe you are incorrect.
The Church has always taught that the first day, which was and is the common day for Christians to come together and celebrate the Eucharist, began in the first century with the Apostles.
Seeing as Christ rose from the dead on the first day (spiritually the "eighth day"), and that He appeared to the Apostles seven consecutive times on the first day (seen as divine significance since the number seven implies completion), and that the Church "officially" began on the first day (Pentecost), lent credence to this concept.
Thus, St. Justin the Martyr, writing only 40-50 years after the death of the last Apostle, could describe the practice of the Christians to congregate on the first day as a well established commonality in his time to the Roman government. If the practice for Christians to meet together on Sunday, the first day, was not already well established prior to his time, then he could not have written about it as he did.
When one begins to put all of this information together, as well as other points I did not already cover, then it is difficult to escape the conclusion that first day meetings of the Christians is the most ancient and original practice. Therefore, the Church is correct in what she has said regarding this.
Blessings to you my friend!
PS: Why don't you provide a nickname so that we'll have something to call you instead of "Anonymous". - Friday, September 11, 2009
Where did Jesus ever give anyone the authority to change His laws. The ten commandments were written in stone by God. Because someone started to worship with the pagans who worshipped the sun does not impute any authority by God to change his law. If you can pull out the fourth commandment (the third according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) then what is to stop anyone from stealing , killing. Any authority that Jesus gave to the disciples does not give them leave to start disregarding the commandments.
Another argument that is posed is that Jesus rose on the first day. Great, but he also RESTED on the Sabbath day. He arose on the first day Sunday to begin to begin the work of His church. Sunday is a day of work , not rest. His example even in His death showed that the Sabbath was still valid. calling it The Lords day doesn't change things. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath Luke 6:5
Isn't this opposing or taking the place of Christ when you purposely change His laws? - Sunday, September 13, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi "Anonymous",
Again, why not out, of convenience, provide us with a nick name so that we will know that it is you instead of someone else?
Now on to your comments.
1. The early Christians did not begin worshipping on Sunday because of the pagans. In fact, it has been suggested that the pagans did not even worship "on" Sunday. There were many different "pagan" groups around all doing their own thing. They were not all united on when and how or who to worship. Thus, there most likely was not a "general" gathering of pagans on the first day of the week. If anyone has any historical documents that show the contrary to be true, I'd be greatly interested. Thanks in advance!
Even though the typical Sunday gathering of Christians as a common practice apparently began long before his time, St. Justin does explain to the Roman authorities the Christian reasons for doing so in his first apology. I'd invite you to read his apology in its entirety as it gives an excellent picture of the Christians up until the mid second century.
2. It is a fact, those Christians who do not observe a weekly "sabbath" rest of 24 hours also believe that it is wrong or sin to murder, steal, dishonor parents, take God's name in vain, worship idols, etc. They do not see it as necessary to cease from working one day a week. They do not believe that this was ever required of Gentiles who did not seek to join the nation of Israel in the flesh. They believe that Gentile Christians are only bound to those commandments found in the Gospel specifcally taught as necessary by Christ, and the commandments imposed upon Gentiles coming to Christ in Acts 15. Keeping a literal 24 hour rest period was never implied or stressed by either Christ or His Apostles.
3. You bring up the fact that Christ rested in the tomb on Saturday, thus validating Sabbath observance for Christians. The Church has always remembered the Sabbath day as being special because it was specially chosen by God in the Hebrew Scriptures as "His day". And furthermore, the Church recognizes that the Sabbath is extra special and significant because of what you said about Jesus resting in the tomb on that day. Therefore, in view of these very valid things, the Church has always held the Divine Liturgy especially on Saturday to commemorate these realities. Saturday, next to Sunday, can truly be said to be the holiest time during the weekly cycle that the Church observes reverently in her worship.
Regarding the 24 hour "rest" mandate from work, the Church does not hold to be encumbent upon the Christian to observe for the reasons mentioned previously.
4. You said that Sunday is a day to work. You are exactly right! Everyday is a day to work and do good for our fellow man. Even when the Church comes together to celebrate the Divine Liturgy on whatever day, it is considered work, work of the people. Therefore, the Church works always just as Christ and His Father continuously work for us (cf. John 5:16-18).
Hope that helped! - Sunday, September 13, 2009
Hi All!
Can someone please show me a single way the Church "changed the Sabbath?"
I bet I can show you more than a few ways the "Sabbath Keepers" of today changed the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was not changed by the Church. The Jews are still celebrating the Sabbath today. So, nope, the last time I checked the catholic Church did not take the Sabbath away from anyone.
Those that have fashioned the Sabbath into a Christian day of rest and worship are the ones guilty of changing the Sabbath.
ATFOJ - Monday, September 14, 2009
- Shepherd said...
ATFOJ, good food for thought,I never took that angle.
I know you have more where that came from.
God Bless
Nature.B - Monday, September 14, 2009
David wrote:
"Seeing as Christ rose from the dead on the first day (spiritually the "eighth day"), and that He appeared to the Apostles seven consecutive times on the first day (seen as divine significance since the number seven implies completion), and that the Church "officially" began on the first day (Pentecost), lent credence to this concept."
David, an explicit declaration of Jesus would have made your statement correct. Alas, it is just a mere statement without foundation. Also, personally, I would say the church of Christ started even before the Pentecost (unless we believe that the disciples were not part of the church before the Pentecost. But maybe it depends how we define the term "church"). But anyway, there is nothing that positively proves that Sunday was supposed to be the day Christians gather together for the Eucharist (above all if we consider that the last supper, the first Eucharist, didn't occur on Sunday).
You mentioned Justin Martyr and his first apology. He wrote that "Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration".
Now, what us interesting is that we see none of the apostles teaching this in the Bible. Where do we see one the apostles saying that Sunday is the day on which Christ's disciples are to gather together (as you asked before, David, show us the verse)? Nowhere!
Again, while it makes sense to presuppose that an early proximity to the apostles' time would assure a greater accuracy as for their teachings, there is in fact no guaranty that the Fathers of the church were always correct, above all when we consider the fact that the apostles themselves spoke, in the Bible, about heresies and wrong doctrines creeping into the church when they were still alive. They spoke about the spirit of antichrist already at work when they were still around. Paul spoke about the wolves that would not spare the sheep after his departure.
Satan didn't wait to introduce errors within the church (don't forget that John said that Satan knows he has a short time (Revelation 12:12)). He did it before the time of Jesus. He did it during the ministry of Jesus. He continued during the time of the apostles and, of course, has kept doing it since then.
So even the writings of the Fathers of the church have to be checked against Scripture to see whether they are true (like the Bereans did). - Monday, September 14, 2009
- Mike Senseney said...
Hi ATFOJ!
You said: Can someone please show me a single way the Church "changed the Sabbath?"
I bet I can show you more than a few ways the "Sabbath Keepers" of today changed the Sabbath.
The Sabbath was not changed by the Church. The Jews are still celebrating the Sabbath today. So, nope, the last time I checked the catholic Church did not take the Sabbath away from anyone.
Those that have fashioned the Sabbath into a Christian day of rest and worship are the ones guilty of changing the Sabbath.
In the nearly one and a half years that I have seen this discussion, here and on other blogs, I have to say that you have analyzed and summarized the truth of the matter more clearly, more accurately, and more succintly, than anyone. I tip my hat and nod my head to you and thank you!
The point you make is brilliant!
A group of 19th centurty New England puritans take a Calvinist Sunday worship service, perform it on Saturday, include some Biblical language around it, place a set of restrictions between sundown Friday evening to sundown Saturday evening (restrictions which have, by the way, been changed by that group over the past 160 years of their existence), then build a vibrant organization around this which makes the claim that they are God's true church, and that the climax of salvation history will be based on each person's choice regarding which day they go to church.
And yet so much of the Biblical law regarding the ture and proper observance of the Sabbath is either neglected, ignored, or both.
Thank you once again ATFOJ, for pointing out who indeed really changed the Sabbath! Brilliant!
God bless all!!! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Still,
Are you faulting the Church for coming together on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist? Which day would you rather have them meet upon?
I guess what I'm really asking is, what is your main point that you are trying to convey?
Thanks! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Mike Senseney said...
Hi Still,
You said: But anyway, there is nothing that positively proves that Sunday was supposed to be the day Christians gather together for the Eucharist (above all if we consider that the last supper, the first Eucharist, didn't occur on Sunday).
And herein lies the problem when so much empahsis is placed on a day rather than the event.
The Eucharist is not about a day. The Eucharist is about the saving act of Jesus Christ giving His body and blood to us so that we may, by His grace and through our faith, receive that gift He gave to us on the cross and by His resurrection...even eternal life.
He offered Himself on Friday, was in the grave on Saturday, and rose from the dead on Sunday. And while these days have significance, it is NOT about any of these days, but about all that happened during those days...the event...and more importantly the event of Jesus Christ...His life, His death, His resurrection.
God bless all!!! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
I concur with you Mike. It is not about days, but about Christ. Sunday simply became the logical time to especially come together to "give thanks" ("eucharistia" in Greek) for the Christian community.
Though any day is appropriate for the celebration of the Eucharist, Saturday and especially Sunday were considered the most significant times for the Church. But I am still at a loss at seeing Still's point that he is trying to convey to us. Please Still, help us out.
Blessings! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Still said: Now, what is interesting is that we see none of the apostles teaching this in the Bible. Where do we see one the apostles saying that Sunday is the day on which Christ's disciples are to gather together (as you asked before, David, show us the verse)? Nowhere!
No Still you show us where they preached sabbath!
Still God gave us brains we use our logic.
1 Cor 16:2,Every sunday
Acts 2:1 Pentecost
Acts 15:4-6-29 Jerusalem council
Acts 20:7 breaking bread sunday
John 20:1 First day of the week
John 20:19 First day of the week
John 20:26 eight days later
Rev 1:10 (John was at the Cross)) the Lords day.
Jesus appeared to the Apostles 7 times,after the resurrection.
Jesus said to enter eternal life, these commandments Math 19:18
Justin Martyr,
Ignatius of Antioch( 100-115) wrote the lords day when life first dawned on us thanks to Jesus and his death and resurrection.
(there are more,My notes are not with me)
We reharsh this issue over and over again, I understand, we leave no leaf unturned because this blog is read daily, especially by my RCI students.
God Bless
Nature.B - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
For memory, let's remember that what we are answering to is the comment made by Fr. Jim, which was:
"Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's Day and the Apostles followed his teaching."
to which Anonymous answered:
"Really? Where does Jesus say that?
Catholic authorities through the centuries have always said the church changed this, in the post-apostolic period, by its own authority".
Then you answered to Anonymous and then I commented on your answer.
So it started when Fr. Jim said that Jesus wanted us to worship on the Lord's day (of course, Sunday for Catholics). This is where Anonymous and myself disagree. We see nowhere in the Bible a call for worship on Sunday made by Jesus.
Now by definition there is nothing wrong in celebrating the resurrection of Jesus on Sunday (even every Sunday if people want). We don't need God's permission to celebrate anything that is not evil. But to call Sunday THE day of worship in opposition to the Sabbath day is wrong. And this is the issue. The Catholic church doesn't simply speak of celebration. She speaks of replacement. Here is what the Catholic catechism says:
"2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death" (emphasis mine)
With a text such a the one above, it is clear that Sunday observance is not just a celebration of Jesus' resurrection. It is also purely and simply about the replacement of the Sabbath day as the worship day (remember, the text says,"no longer keeping the sabbath"). And this is simply not biblical. Nowhere in the Bible do we see Jesus declaring that, starting at the day of His resurrection, His disciples were to replace the Sabbath day worship with the Sunday worship.
As you mentioned yourself, David, Jesus appeared several times to His disciples. He had many occasions to tell them about the change of the day of worship. He didn't say anything about it.
In short, Jesus never spoke about a change of the day of worship before the cross. He never spoke about it during the last supper. He never spoke about it when He was on the cross before His death. He never spoke about it after His resurrection.
This proves that Jesus never had the intention to make the change in the first place. - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Still,
Thank you very much for the quote from the Catechism, it was very interesting and enlightening. I have not spent much time in it, though I have read some of it. It is a rather thick document, after all (my weak excuse for lack of thoroughness ;).
I believe that I understand your main contention against the Roman Church now, and I agree with you! No where do we read Jesus or His Apostles even hinting at the first day as a "replacement" for worship on the seventh. From what I can see, the early Church celebrated the Eucharist almost every day, as this is witnessed to in Acts 2 among other places; as well as the Didache's call to gather together "daily". I see nothing in the Ante-Nicene Fathers that even suggests that the first day is to be considered a "replacement" for the seventh day. It apparently was not thought of in that way.
It is interesting to note that the Orthodox (both "eastern" and "oriental") have never considered Sunday as a "replacement" for the Sabbath, either in terms of worship (which they freely have on both days), or in terms of rest (which is believed not to be encumbent upon the Christian). This was actually one of the things that drew me toward the Orthodox side, as I saw this as respresenting closer the Ante-Nicene understanding.
Still, I believe you have greatly sharpened the discussion on this issue. I also greatly appreciate it! I would be very interested to hear our Catholc friends' explanation on this, as I find this to be quite fascinating.
God Bless! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- The Lady Dragon said...
Still and David:
Still wrote, "As you mentioned yourself, David, Jesus appeared several times to His disciples. He had many occasions to tell them about the change of the day of worship. He didn't say anything about it."
On what do you base this assumption?
After the Resurrection, Jesus hung with the fellows for 40 days. Where in the Bible is everything Jesus said during those 40 days recorded? We have no idea, what Jesus may or may not have said during those six weeks.
Are you going to tell me that a) He just repeated what He told them during the previous 3 1/2 years? Then why did He bother to hang around? Or b) every thing he said that was important was written down. In which case, why did He bother to hang around since there is very little written down that He said after the resurrection.
Surely if Jesus remained on earth for 40 days after the resurrection, something important was going on, but clearly 38 days of it was not recorded in Scripture. - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Armando said...
Hello and God Bless everyone.
"its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath".
Well of course. Sunday tries to immitate the ceremonial observance of the Jewish Sabbath. So I don't think there is anything wrong with that line.
David don't you think going to your church on Sunday does just that? It replaces the "ceremonial observance" ONLY. "Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath", and this is because of Jesus' ressurection and the Eucharist.
1166 "By a tradition handed down from the apostles which took its origin from the very day of Christ's Resurrection, the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's Day or Sunday."36 The day of Christ's Resurrection is both the first day of the week, the memorial of the first day of creation, and the "eighth day," on which Christ after his "rest" on the great sabbath inaugurates the "day that the Lord has made," the "day that knows no evening."37 The Lord's Supper is its center, for there the whole community of the faithful encounters the risen Lord who invites them to his banquet:38 - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Armando,
What do you suppose the Catechism means by using the phrase "ceremonial observance"?
Thanks and blessings to you! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Alan Phipps said...
Just a note of clarification. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch (writing in the early 2nd century) in paragraph 2175 when it says:
"Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death"
This is pertinent to the discussion concerning how the earliest Christians understood mandatory observance of the sabbath w/ respect to gathering on the Lord's Day. - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Still said; In short, Jesus never spoke about a change of the day of worship before the cross. He never spoke about it during the last supper. He never spoke about it when He was on the cross before His death. He never spoke about it after His resurrection.
You are CORRECT STILL!
Still, John 16:12 Jesus said'I still have many things to tell you,...when HE, the spirit of TRUTH comes, he will guide you into the whole truth
John 20:30 there are many other "SIGNS" that Jesus gave in the presence of his disciples..not recorded in this book.
Could 7 visitations on sunday be one of those signs?
John 14:25..the Helper the Holy Spirit..will teach you all things...
Still, Jesus left some work for the Holy Spirit to Guide the Church.
Read my thread under Papacy I listed the early Church Fathers guided by the Holy Spirit
This is of Paramont importance proving the point that without the "Apostolic Church" Christianity is rudderless.
God Bless the Church listening to the Constant guidance of the HELPER. - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Shepherd said...
David, as an orthodox, you may not accept this statement by Pope Gregory:Pope Gregory I
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these [men] but preachers of Antichrist, who when he comes will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord's day to be kept free from all work. For because he [the Antichrist] pretends to die and rise again, he wishes the Lord's day to be held in reverence; and because he compels the people to Judaize that he may bring back the outward rite of the law, and subject the perfidy of the Jews to himself, he wishes the Sabbath to be observed. For this which is said by the prophet, 'You shall bring in no burden through your gates on the Sabbath day' [Jer. 17:24] could be held to as long as it was lawful for the law to be observed according to the letter. But after that the grace of almighty God, our Lord Jesus Christ, has appeared, the commandments of the law which were spoken figuratively cannot be kept according to the letter. For if anyone says that this about the Sabbath is to be kept, he must needs say that carnal sacrifices are to be offered. He must say too that the commandment about the circumcision of the body is still to be retained. But let him hear the apostle Paul saying in opposition to him: 'If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing' [Gal. 5:2]" (Letters 13:1 [A.D. 597]).
Well, little me called sabbatarians Anti-Christ, because the culture at the time was Judaist (Anti Christ) against Christians. I was advised by fellow bloggers to back off that kind of language.
In the Spirit of Brotherly Love.
Nature.B - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Nature B,
Thank you for that quote from Pope St. Gregory the Great. I actually knew about that one, and find it interesting. Especially in light of our current conversation.
What is really fascinating about it to me is that he says that those who forbid work from being done on the Lord's day (i.e. sabbatizing the Sunday) are of the antichrist, but then a little further down he talks about observing the Lord's day free from work? It came across as somewhat confusing to me. Perhaps someone here can speak to this?
Thanks and God bless! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Alan,
Thanks for that bit of information. When I read that quote from the Catechism I thought that some of the language sounded similiar to St. Ignatius.
Perhaps you can help me here. I know that there are "short" versions of his letters, and the longer "recensions". I believe, if I am not mistaken, that the longer "recensions" are not held as genuine by scholars. That quote you provided, is it from the shorter or longer "recension"?
Thanks and blessings! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Alan Phipps said...
"That quote you provided, is it from the shorter or longer "recension"?"
Hi David, good question! In fact, I have heard of three recensions discussed with an even shorter, more condensed version. But of the "longer" and "shorter" recensions, according to CCEL, the quotation in question is from the shorter recension. You can read it here at this link, which contains the shorter version (first paragraph) and longer version following that.
The longer version is a obviously fleshed out a lot more: "Let us therefore no longer keep the Sabbath after the Jewish manner, and rejoice in days of idleness; for "he that does not work, let him not eat." For say the [holy] oracles, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all the days [of the week]."
I opt for the shorter. - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Armando said...
Hello David,
By ceremonial observance it only means the actual act as a community to come together weekly for God. Sunday just happens to be the day the apostles did this and when Christ ressurected. This in a way replaces the sabbath-keeping the Jewish community had to do. We replace and fulfill them with our participation in the Divine Liturgies (listening to the Word of God and taking the Eucharist).
Back in the CCC it says:
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
That being said, this does not replace Gods Sabbath which is his eternal rest and hhe invites us to share with him.
Hebrews 4:
9 Therefore, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God.
10 And whoever enters into God's rest, rests from his own works as God did from his.
11 Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.
David, another good read is the Sabbath chapter in St. John of Damascus' - An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV)
Blessings. - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Alan,
Thanks for that.
That quote of Ignatius, doesn't it say in the Greek literally along the lines of something like:
"If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living according to the Lord's life..."
Instead of,
"...living in observance of the Lord's day..."?
Also, which letter is that from anyways?
Thanks for your help in this, and God bless! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Hi Armando,
Thanks for that link. I'll check it out.
Also, thanks for your explanation of "ceremonial observance". So you do not think that "ceremonial observance" comprehends a mandatory rest from labor? That certainly was part and parcel of the Sabbath commandment. What are your thoughts on this?
Also, I would like to say that I do agree with most of what you said. However, even though I understand Sunday's unique and special quality, seeing that it is the resurrection day, I do not see how a common assembly on that day alone constitutes a "fulfillment" of the Jewish Sabbath. Indeed, it cannot. As Mike stated above, and which I agree with him wholeheartedly, it is not about days, but about Christ. It is the ever present, continuous, and contemporary reality of Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and His glorious second coming that is "remembered" during the Divine Liturgy that is the fulfillment of God's rest. And this is true regardless of the day that the Liturgy is performed upon.
Jesus said, "Come unto Me all you who are weary and heavy burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matt.11:28) Jesus Himself is the fulfillment of the Sabbath, not a day in time. It is true that when we partake of the Eucharist, that we are communing with Christ. However, it must always be borne in mind that it is not the day that we do this on that matters, but the Presence. This, I believe the Orthodox have generally understood and held to. Thus, that may be why they have never seen Sunday as a "fulfillment" of the Jewish Sabbath.
Blessings! - Tuesday, September 15, 2009
- Alan Phipps said...
It's from the Letter to the Magnesians. As to the Greek, I can't say much about that. Only that every reputable translation I have read uses "Lord's Day". - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- Hugo Mendez said...
Literally, it reads "according to the Lord's" where "day" or "life" must be supplied. - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- David Atkins said...
Thank you Alan and Hugo. I appreciate the information.
So what do you two think of what Still said regarding the idea that the Catechism teaches the "replacement" of the Sabbath with Sunday? I find it to be quite to the contrary to what I have found in the early Christian writings. I have read quite a few Orthodox responses to the Sabbath question (important to me seeing how I used to keep it), and it seems that pretty much none of them understand Sunday as a replacement for the Sabbath. I read St. John of Damascus' An exact exposition of the orthodox faith chapter 23 where he speaks about the Sabbath, and could not find this "replacement" theology. He seemed to me to be presenting the early Christian view of it, that we now observe the Sabbath spiritually by "resting" from our works of evil.
Perhaps Still and myself have misunderstood the Catechism's meaning?
Thank you both for your patience, and God's blessings to you! - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- tonya said...
Hi everyone. May the Peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you today!
David Atkins:
What the catechism states is the the moral obligation of the sabbath is fulfilled in the celebratin of the Lord's Day (I'm paraphrasing as I don't have it handy). That, to my knowledge, is exactly what sabbath-keeping Christians of today claim when they attempt to keep parts of the sabbath law in tact (sundown to sundown rest and refrain from certain tasks). However, I've never known a sabbath-keeping Christian to keep the liturgical requirements of the sabbath (which would not have been "done away" in Christ's sacrifice). And that's just one way sabbath-keeping Christians fall short of actually "keeping" the sabbath. This is where we actually get our catholic liturgical form of the mass.
One has only to read what is involved in truly keeping the sabbath holy as was commanded by God and you quickly come to the conclusion that what sabbath-keeping Christians are doing today is noteworthy and faithful, but clearly not what God commanded.
There is much more to keeping the sabbath holy than simply resting from sundown to sundown and refraining from certain 'work'. These are neglected by Christian sabbath-keepers and they claim the abolishment of the Laws to justify it.
Take for instance the fact that most sabbath-keeping Christians will not work on Saturday, at all. Jews do not restrict themselves in this way. The work they are prohibited from doing is anything that would 'create' something. This is very important in that it is seen to mirror God's creative work and the very thing they are supposed to rest from. In other words, if you are an accountant, crunching numbers all day, you can go to work. But...there's one problem...you can't drive a car! Cars are combustion engines and require fire to start them so you are not to drive or ride in a car. Not to mention, you would most certainly have to turn on a light. Ha, burning a candle and creating light. God's work, can't do it.
Now sabbath-keeping Christians will tell you this is way too strict for the keeping of the sabbath of today because God did away with the Laws. Well, you can't have it both ways. Besides, the Scriptures do not reflect this.
This is where they are guilty of fashioning the sabbath into a Christian day of worship.
The fact of the matter is, if you take away all that is ceremonial in the law, you are left with 'a' command and no way to 'keep' it. So anyone facing this dilemma will have to do some choosing as to what exactly institutes "keeping" the sabbath by Christians. This is what has been done by sabbath-keeping Christians. But that is contrary to Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us as Christians how we are to keep the sabbath holy. Why? Because that command doesn't exist for Christians. This forces you to belong to one camp or the other. Christian or Jew? There are only two Covenants and two very clear ways of keeping them Holy. The Jews have The Law. We have Baptism and the Eucharist.
Sabbath-keeping Christians are standing in the middle of two Covenants and fall short of keeping either one sufficiently.
It's really not very complicated. I always find it very curious that SDAs and other sabbath-keeping Christians claim that the Church changed the sabbath. Christ instituted the Lord's Day, not His Apostles. The Church guides its believers in seeing the fulfillment of the sabbath in the Lord's Day. Just as Christ and the Apostles did in seeing Christ in the Old Testament.
The Church does not claim to have changed the sabbath, only the day to worship our Lord.
ATFOJ - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- tonya said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Hi Hugo, have you ever posted a Blog on harmonic signs of scripture, e.g : John 20:30 there are many other "SIGNS" that Jesus gave in the presence of his disciples..not recorded in this book.
Jesus appearing 7 times on sunday after the resurrection. There are 524 times numerals of 7 are mentioned in the Bible,this divine harmonic scheme(EWTN). Should this be left alone as mystery?
Nature.B - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- David Atkins said...
These questions are for Still:
In your estimation, what would you deem as proper "Christian" Sabbath observance? Would worshipping together in the Eucharist as a Christian community on Saturday be considered by you as the proper "Christian" Sabbath observance? If not, then, in your estimation, what would be lacking?
Thanks, and blessings to you! - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- Armando said...
Hello David,
Thanks for your reply,
Q: "So you do not think that "ceremonial observance" comprehends a mandatory rest from labor?"
A: I do think that we should make the best effort to not do any secular work on Sunday and I think the Orthodox agree there also. Sunday is a Holy Day. But it isn't a "law" to not work either and I am sure the Church has some guidelines for us to follow if we do have to do some secular work.
About the "fulfillment", what I mean to say is to fulfill a day for God alone. I am not sure how I can express what I think here so I think I will leave that part out of here.
You gave a link once about the sabbath from www.orthodoxinfo.com. I find some things written there to be very intersting. JPII once said that "the Church must breathe with her two lungs" with regard to the Church of Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
There is a document I searched in that site and in regards to sunday it reads: "In place of the Old Testament sabbath, in the New Testament the day following the sabbath, the "Day of the Lord" or the "day of resurrection," came to be celebrated the Christians."
In this persons personal writing about Orthodox understanding should I not be translating "in place" to be another way of saying "replace"?
Blessings. - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- Armando said...
David, sorry the link for the document is: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/averky_ent.aspx
- Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- Mike Senseney said...
Hi Tonya, Are you by any chance HC from CAF? If you are it's me, Patrick Murebil from CAF.
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:-)
God bless all!!! - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- tonya said...
Hi Patrick! Great to 'see' you!
Yep, it's me. You found me out :O) - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- Mike Senseney said...
Hi Tonya, it is great to see you too! I thought I recognized your Spirit-filled wisdom and insight. Welcome to this blog...it is really really good to say the least and the participants here from all faith communities are really nice Christians and the dialouge is more civil even in the midst of disagreement.
BTW...I go by my real name here...Mike...but I really do miss Patrick from time to time...LOL But I don't want to derail this thread's good discussion by exploring multiple personalities...LOL Soooo...it is really nice to see you...stick around and contribute...your thoughts and insights and spirit are indeed valuable!
Also, if you get a chance, check out David Atkin's blog "Former Adventist Dialogue"...there are some really good essays by him over there...and I'm currently over there discussing God's salvation love as revealed in His covenants. You can click on a link to his blog in the left hand column on this blog. Take care!!!
My apologies to everyone for my sidetrack here...but Tonya is a dear and good friend and I'm glad she is here!
God bless all!!! - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
- tonya said...
Thank you Mike. God Bless you for your kind words. I am honored. The Holy Spirit deserves ALL the credit for His guidance in my life.
This indeed seems more civil. I've been lurking for a while. I probably won't interject very much as I can learn way more by 'listening'. :-D
I am enjoying the friendly discussion and will stay tuned in.
Afterall, we are all soliders of Christ and all desire to do His will above all.
God Bless,
Tonya - Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Hi people,
Sorry I haven't responded to anything yet lately. I am out of town for a few days. I will catch up later.
God bless you all. - Sunday, September 20, 2009
hello friends
i find ur comments quite nice.
but i will be much thankful if anyone can explain "revelation 13 and 17" bcos it talks about the antichrist very well.
TOM...i dont get your arguement well...what do u really mean???
again, i find it quite fascinating when David said the church was built on st. Peter. i wish you will find me the true meaning of the greek words :- "petra and petros" as Our Lord and Saviour used.
i hope to get my answer sooner. thank you and God bless us all. - Friday, November 13, 2009
- black son of God said...
hello friends
i find ur comments quite nice.
but i will be much thankful if anyone can explain "revelation 13 and 17" bcos it talks about the antichrist very well.
TOM...i dont get your arguement well...what do u really mean???
again, i find it quite fascinating when David said the church was built on st. Peter. i wish you will find me the true meaning of the greek words :- "petra and petros" as Our Lord and Saviour used.
i hope to get my answer sooner. thank you and God bless us all. - Friday, November 13, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Hi Black son.., welcome to the Blog.
John is the writer of Revelation.
He already explained who the Anti Christ is in 1John 2:18-22.
Remember John 6.66, some Jews turned their backs on Jesus and did not accept him as the Messaiah. Even today Jews think more of Moses than Jesus. Therefore Jews are the Anti- Christ, plus Muslims.
Interestingly God who knows all, gave them a Sign, Circumcision and sabbath.
Today we all see them attending Church on the sabbath (The sign)thats the Anti- Christ.
Blk Son, Protestants argue the greek petras or whatever.
Math 16:17 Jesus told Peter..it is not flesh or blood that has revealed this to you, BUT MY FATHER IN HEAVEN.
Therefore God Chose Peter to be the head of the RC Church.
I personally don't speak greek so I follow Gods Choice.
Nature.B - Friday, November 13, 2009
- Clement said...
Hi there,
In response to your question, Black Son of God:
Jesus spoke Aramaic, as we see from His shout of anguish from the cross (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
So when he names Simon "Rock", "Petros", the word he used is Kepha. So the sentence goes, "You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church"
The Greek transliteration gives us Petros for Kepha. Some people (like yourself I am guessing) suggest that petros meant small pebble and petra meant rock. While this may be true in later dialects of Greek it is not clear that this is the case for the Koine Greek in which the New Testament and Septuagint are written (Perhaps David Atkins can help us out here?). Even if in everyday language, petro WAS pebble, and petra rock, the writer of the Gospel could not translate Kepha to Petras for the name of a man, as Petra is a feminine noun, thus Petros is written as it is the masculine form of the word for rock.
In considering this passage, it is also (as always) crucial to consider its immediate context. In this chapter, Matthew presents two similar statements, one from Simon Peter about Jesus, and one from Jesus about Simon Peter. Let's look at them again side by side: (Matt 16:16-19)
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
So Peter says to Jesus, You are the Christ the Son of the living God. And Jesus responds, You are the son of Jonah, the Rock on which I will build my church.
Jesus goes on to give Peter the keys to the kingdom. This is very significant, as the keys symbolise authority, authority over the Kingdom of God, to bind and to loose.
It would be very odd if, Jesus said to Peter, you are but a pebble, but I will build my church on a rock. However, here are the keys to the kingdom.
What are your thoughts Black Son of God?
Clement - Monday, November 16, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Hi Black Son of God, read Isaiah 18:2 & 7. Maybe you might consider the term 'Bronzed son Of God' it is scriptural. My daughter Mixed like Obama read the text and said she is more bronzed than black,LOL.
a fleeting thought?
Nature.B - Monday, November 16, 2009
I want to make sure that it is understood that the Catholic Church does not teach that Jews are the anti-Christ.
Fr. Jim - Monday, November 16, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Hi Fr.Jim, I said: Today we all see them attending meetings on the sabbath (The sign)thats the Anti- Christ.
Thats How I read(Lk 10:26..how do you read?), not the Catholic Church.
Adventist read one way, I read the other.
Nature.B - Monday, November 16, 2009
Considering the antichrist, I think that there are several misconception here. The four texts from the epistles of John are not the first one to speak about the antichrist(s).
Psalm 2:2 says:
"The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One.".
This text is mentioned again in Acts 4:26 when the expression "Anointed One" is applied to Jesus.
Notice that the kings and the rulers are against the "Anointed One". Christ means "Anointed One". So the kings and rulers are antichrists.
Now, let's look at what Revelation 17:18 says:
"The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth" (the woman being the woman riding the scarlet beast, the one whose name is Babylon the great and who was drunk with the blood of the saints).
Protestants (and some catholics) have historically identified that "city that rules over the kings of the earth" as being the Vatican. And since the kings and rulers are antichrists, the power represented by that city that rules over them is also antichrist and, in fact, is the Antichrist "par excellence", as you said (since this power is the ultimate power ruling over all the kings of the earth). - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Shepherd said...
STill said: The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth" (the woman being the woman riding the "scarlet" beast, the one whose name is Babylon the great and who was drunk with the blood of the saints).
Scarlet..purple and Gold are the Colours of Pagan Rome boasting their wealth. Roman History.
Still; John wrote this on the island of Potmos, The woman is Babylon Rome, the Emperor Nero to Hadrian to over 80 Emperors is responsible for the "Blood of the Saints" persecuting Johns followers of Christ.
The Woman is Rome Babylon reigns over the Kings of the Whole world.
Over 80 Emperors(Beast) persecuted Christians until Constantine.
Constantine's Rome was 325 AD.
The Under ground Church survived until the reign of Constantine.
The Miracle that 'kills'(upsets) the protestants, is that Peter and Paul Conquered Rome with the (JN 14:16) HELPER, at the end; with Bascilicas built over their Tombs.
Still your own SDA Theologian Samuele Bacchiocchi,studied in Rome and agreed that Pagan Rome was the beast.
SDA is still preaching this nonsense although they have lost thousands of pastors over this unfortunate interpretation.
Sharing and learning
Nature.B - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Still, your thread was correct about the Anti Christ Kings.
according to John the Jews among them were Anti-Christ
1John 2:19: These people really did not belong to our fellowship, and that is why they left us; if they had belonged to our fellowship, they(Jn6.66) would have stayed with us. But they left so that it might be clear that none of them really belonged to us.
20 But you have had the Holy Spirit poured out on you by Christ, and so all of you know the truth.21 I write you, then, not because you do not know the truth; instead, it is because you do know it, and you also know that no lie ever comes from the truth.
22 Who, then, is the liar? It is those who say that Jesus is not the Messiah(Jews today). Such people are the Enemy of Christianity, they reject both the Father and the Son. 23 For those who reject the Son reject also the Father; those who accept the Son have the Father also.
Still, I personally preach this truth, that Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah, bear the sign that the Omnipresent God gave them(Ex32:17) for that very reason (1 Cor 10:11)as a warning. You know the Signs Circumcision and sabbath.
Sharing and learning.
Nature.B - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Now concerning the expression "confessing Christ", we have to be careful here.
Confessing Christ doesn't just mean confessing with one's mouth. If it were the case, then the demons also confessed Christ. In Matthew 8:29 they said:
"What do you want with us, Son of God?".
Here, the demons recognized (confessed) that Jesus was the son of God (whereas the Jews didn't). So, just because the demons made that confession, does it mean that they are pro-Christ now? Doubtful.
Let's take another example, the young girl with a spirit of divination, in Acts 16:16-18:
"Now it happened, as we went to prayer, that a certain slave girl possessed with a spirit of divination met us, who brought her masters much profit by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and us, and cried out, saying, "These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation." And this she did for many days.
But Paul, greatly annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her." And he came out that very hour. "
It is interesting to see that the girl was saying the truth. She was confessing that Paul was indeed a servant of the Most High God. But she was saying this under the influence of a demon.
Now, was this demon pro-God? Not at all.
These two examples show that confessing is not just about saying something. Jesus spoke about those who say "Master, Master" but refuse to obey Him. The true confession is the one which is followed by obedience. Without obedience, what we say is just wind.
So, when we apply this to the Church, it is not what we say that matters and is a true confession. It is the demonstration of this confession.
As John said in 1 John 1:3-6:
"4 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did" - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Nature, if you are trying to make the point of turn about is fair play then that is fine by me. You can make the Bible say whatever you want if there is no magisterium. So many Protestants have discovered that to their dismay. I can prove that EG White is the Anti-Christ quite easily. I do wish they would finally get over the 19th century anti-Catholic canards.
Fr. Jim - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Still, I Can't follow, my Catholic bible has no word in 1 John that says Confess. You must be using KJV.
That may be (is) a willful deception..Luther(protestant) and
KJV commonaly used or misused the word 'confession' to distort or diminish its effect in their bibles when used in John 20:21.
I will not take that bate sorry!
Nature.B - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Fr.Jim, the American College Encyclopedic Dictionary says:
SAY ; is to speak or utter a word.
CONFESS: to acknowledge or vow, to disclose a secret, fault, or crime.
As I stated before, I have had many a fight with protestants on the abuse of the word confess.
That was a willful deception by Luther when he was UNBOUND(Mat 16:18) by the POPE, and knew he lost that ministry.
Protestant bibles have sprinkled that word in the bible like sand in a cake.
Nature.B - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Hugo Mendez said...
>>>"The four texts from the epistles of John are not the first one to speak about the antichrist(s)."
They are the only ones to explicitly use the term "antichrist." Therefore, when we speak of "the*** antichrist" and "the*** antichrist of bible prophecy" as Adventists so commonly do, we must speak of the only entity identified as "the antichrist," which entity cannot be the Catholic Church based on all textual data.
Now, you cite several scriptures speaking of those who oppose the Messiah: kings and rulers in the days of the apostles, and the kings of the earth in Rev. 17. And though scripture never calls these "antichrists," yes, we could creatively*/innnovatingly apply the term "antichrists" to them insofar as they are anti-Christ. But are they "the antichrist" of whom early Christians were warned, and whose eschatological coming they anticipated (1 Jn. 2:18)? No. Are they more worthy of the title "antichrist" than the figure explicitly named such by John? Of course not.
And this is the problem.
Should I identify someone who does not meet the specifications of 2 Thess. 2 "the man of lawlessness" and "man of lawlessness par excellence?" No matter how "lawless" he might be, if he does not meet the specifications of 2 Thess. 2, applying these titles to him is confusing and likely inappropriate.
...Now, as for your broad, extra-scriptural, uses of the term, here's a question: why would Satan not be the "antichrist par excellence?" Is he not the ultimate opponent of God? How will we limit the fullest application of the term "antichrist" to the Catholic Church (your "antichrist par excellence")? These are the difficulties of defending a Protestant/Adventist tradition. - Tuesday, November 17, 2009
- Shepherd said...
Hi Still, I confess, I erred with the words confess and confession; however you said: Here, the demons recognized (confessed(acknowledged)) that Jesus was the son of God (whereas the Jews didn't). So, just because the demons made that confession(acknowledgment), does it mean that they are pro-Christ now? Doubtful.
NO they are Ant-Christ.
The demons acknowledged(confessed) their enemy(Christ).
Still said: It is interesting to see that the girl was saying the truth. She was 'confessing' that Paul was indeed a servant of the Most High God. But she was saying this under the influence of a demon.
The demon in the girl was acknowledging(confessing) his enemy which is Christ with Paul.
I can stand in Court and (acknowledge)Confess to the Judge my robber; yet I despise him for his actions.
I can confess that sabbatarians are the Anti Christ because they wear the banner of the sign (Circumcision or sabbath) of the Jewish Anti- Christ 1 John 2:22.
But it would be up to you to make a CONFESSION(admission of guilt) that you are fully aware of that fact, yet you insist on flying that banner(Anti-Christ) for financial gain by employment.
This would be the proper way to use these words.
N.B. This exercise was for the benefit of my new class of RCI X -Adventist students, who read this Blog daily.
Sharing and Learning
Nature.B - Thursday, November 19, 2009
http://www.4shared.com/u/pvpvtzst/fe91b159/THE_HOLY_SPIRIT_POWER.html?sId=2YXyNNpauc8YM8wT - Thursday, March 04, 2010
- Pastor Kerr said...
491. "Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, 'full of grace' through God,[Lk 1:28 .] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of JESUS Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of ORIGINAL SIN.[Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854): DS 2803
- Sunday, April 24, 2011
- Curious said...
Jesus said, "I did not come to destroy the laws or the prophecies, but to fulfill them." Can anyone on this blog show me where is it written that He changed His mind and said, "Except for the Sabbath and keeping it Holy, I am changing that because my Father made a mistake and really meant that you can keep any day you want Holy whenever it works for you, or not!" If He did not say it it didn't happen. Don't tell me that He said it in secret to His disciples and only the Pope knows the secret. GOD changeth not!
- Wednesday, June 27, 2012
- Mike Senseney said...
Hi Curious,
On the SDA2RC Forums, we are having a discussion about the sabbath. I would invite you and other SDAs (and Catholics) to come there and participate in that discussion.
I am doing there, what SDAs (including myself when I was a SDA) have always claimed yet I never truly witnessed...and that is the claim that SDAs base their beliefs on a doctrine on ALL the verses in the ENTIRE Bible on a given subject. Having never seen any result or product to that end regarding the sabbath, I thought, I'd use that as the basis for a topic of discussion.
There are some ground rules that I've laid down to keep the discussion focused, in context, and on topic....it seems too easy for us in these online discussions to go way off topic way too easily.
So, I would love to have you and other SDAs come and discuss the sabbath on the Forum. The discussion can be found in the thread titled:
A Catholic Study in the Book of Revelation
The ground rules can be found, and the discussion begins, on page 15 (I think) of that discussion thread. You can link to the Forum in the upper left hand column of this Blog, and sign in from there.
Come...let us reason together...
God bless all!!! - Wednesday, July 04, 2012


text:
George Papaioannou
Professor of Finance
PHD, 1979, Pennsylvania St Univ Univ Park; MBA, 1973, Duquesne Univ; BS, 1971, Schl of Economics & BusinessBio
Dr. Papaioannou earned a B.A. in economics with honors from the Athens School of Economics and Business Sciences, an M.B.A. from Duquesne University, and a Ph.D. in finance from The Pennsylvania State University.
His research interests include topics in corporate finance, investment banking and international finance. His teaching concentrates on corporate finance and investment banking.
He has conducted research on stock listings, corporate financial policy, mergers and acquisitions, the Greek stock market and security offerings.
His papers have appeared in Financial Management, The Financial Review, the Journal of Financial Research, the Journal of Financial Education, Managerial and Decision Economics, and other refereed journals in the United States and abroad; he is also a contributor to The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance. Dr. Papaioannou has also authored the study Development of Direct Financing in Greece. His work has been cited in journal articles and books. He has presented papers and participated in many academic conventions as a program committee member, discussant and session chair. He serves regularly as an ad hoc reviewer for academic journals. Dr. Papaioannou is on the editorial board of the Multinational Finance Journal and the Journal of Financial Services Marketing. He speaks Greek and has taught finance at Erasmus University, Rotterdam; the University of Piraeus; and ALBA Graduate Business School, Greece.
Dr. Papaioannou was Co-Director of two international conferences on global finance issues organized at Hofstra University and Co-Editor of the two volumes of proceedings.
He is currently the Director of the Merrill Lynch Center for the Study of International Financial Services and Markets at the Zarb School of Business. He serves on the board of directors of Nassau Educators Federal Credit Union. Dr. Papaioannou is a member of the American Finance Association; the Eastern, Southern, Southwestern, and Midwest Associations; and the Financial Management Association; and is a trustee of the Multinational Finance Society.
Teaching Interests
Corporate Finance Investment Banking International Financial MarketsResearch Interests
Underwriting firms and markets; Securities underwriting Domestic and international listing decisions of firms Corporate mergers & acquisitions Corporate finance Cost of CapitalRecent Courses Taught
Course | Title | Level |
FIN 101 | INTRO TO FINANCE INSTN & MKTS | Undergraduate |
FIN 174 | BUSINESS INTERNSHIP | Undergraduate |
FIN 209 | CORPORATE FINANCE POLICY | Graduate |
FIN 225 | INVESTMENT BANKING | Graduate |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
George Ayittey Discusses Why Africa is Poor on BBC radios Exchanges on the World Economy Recorded: Friday, October 25, 2013
Ghanaian economist and Research Fellow, George Ayittey argues that Africa is poor because it is not freedue to dictatorships. He spoke with host Justin Rowlatt and an audience at Paris Dauphine University in Paris.
Experts: George B. N. AyitteyType: RadioIssues: Culture/ Society, Diplomacy and Foreign Aid, Economic History and Development (International), Economic Policy, Economists, Free Market Economics, Trade
Ivan Eland on the Syrian Crisis and White House Leadership Recorded: Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Senior Fellow Ivan Eland appeared on the RT Global News Channel program Crosstalk speaking about the crisis in Syria and President Obama's effectiveness as a world leader.
Experts: Ivan ElandType: TelevisionIssues: Defense and Foreign Policy, Diplomacy and Foreign Aid, Political Ideology and Philosophy, Politics
Ivan Eland Discusses Syria on ARNN Recorded: Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Sr. Fellow Ivan Eland appears on the nationally syndicated "America's Radio News Network" program with Lori Lundin discussing the debate on American intervention in Syria.
Experts: Ivan ElandType: RadioIssues: Defense and Foreign Policy, Diplomacy and Foreign Aid, Government Power, Terrorism and National Crises
Alvaro Vargas Llosa on The Jason Lewis Radio Show Recorded: Thursday, August 15, 2013
Senior Fellow Alvaro Vargas Llosa, author of Global Crossings, is interviewed by host Jason Lewis about his new book.
Experts: Alvaro Vargas LlosaType: RadioIssues: Economic Policy, Immigration, Labor and Employment, Latin America, Politics
Obama and Putin: A Summit that Wasnt Recorded: Friday, August 9, 2013
In a cold war of words, President Barack Obama told Russian President Vladimir Putin he wouldnt attend a Moscow summit in September. Research Fellow Anthony Gregory compares the two leaders record on human rights and asks why they would even meet in the first place.
Experts: Anthony GregoryType: Independent Institute TVIssues: Civil Liberties/ Human Rights, Freedom, Government Power, Political Ideology and Philosophy, Politics
Ivan Eland Discusses Snowdens Temporary Asylum in Russia Recorded: Friday, August 2, 2013
Senior Fellow Ivan Eland discusses USRussia relations and Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle blower on CCTV's "BizAsia America" show.
Experts: Ivan ElandType: TelevisionIssues: Civil Liberties/ Human Rights, Defense and Foreign Policy, Freedom, Law Enforcement, Politics
Alvaro Vargas Llosa on Immigration, Civilization, and America Recorded: Friday, June 21, 2013
Senior Fellow Alvaro Vargas Llosa, author of Global Crossings, describes who immigrants are and why they move, and he compares the immigrant experience today to that of previous eras, identifying far more similarities than differences at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.
Experts: Alvaro Vargas LlosaType: Other EventIssues: Culture/ Society, Economic History and Development (International), Economic History and Development (U.S.), Immigration, Latin America, Politics
Alvaro Vargas Llosa on CBN News Recorded: Friday, June 21, 2013
Senior Fellow Alvaro Vargas Llosa, author of Global Crossings shares his insights on immigration reform on CBN News.
Experts: Alvaro Vargas LlosaType: TelevisionIssues: Culture/ Society, Immigration, Labor and Employment, Political Ideology and Philosophy, Politics


text:
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread: 94 k1500 no spark
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- LeClaire, Iowa
- Posts
- 8
94 k1500 no spark
hey all, i have a 94 gmc k1500 and am getting no spark. plugs, wires, cap, rotor, and ignition coil have all been replaced. i am not getting any current out of the ignition coil itself. originally i thought it may be a fuel issue so the fuel pump and filter were both checked and are working properly. what would be the next item to check/replace? sorry if the question has been brought up before but i did a search and couldnt come up with an answer.
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Center, TX
- Posts
- 92
if it is a vortec check your crank shaft sensor.
---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------
also check your pick up coil on the distributor
05-29-2012, 07:50 PM #3What you have changed either the ignition module in side distributor or pickup coil on distributor. shaft.
Can take ign. module to auto parts for a test . see if it is good.RESIDENT NUT.....MY CLAIM TO FAME .....
05-29-2012, 10:27 PM #4Check all your grounds and check the wire from the battery to your starter...ive seen them go bad and once i replaced them,worked like new!
2009 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LT Z71 Crew Cab "All-Star Edition"
Line-X'd Bed
Line-X'd Custom Brush Guard(Heavy Duty)
5.3L Flex Fuel
Factory Black Running Boards
BF Goodrich All-Terrain KO's(265/65R18)
2" Rough Country Leveling Kit
EGR In-Channel Vent Visors
Exterior PLUS Package
Interior PLUS Package
K&N Drop-In Air Filter
Bowtie Mud Flaps
Cat-Back Dual Exhaust
Black Bowties
DeeZee Toolbox(Debadged)
Diablo Sport Predator(AFM Disabled)
Next Planned Mods
Towing Mirrors
Bigger Tires
Aftermarket Rims
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- LeClaire, Iowa
- Posts
- 8
ok, thanks guys i will try those things and see what happens. thanks for the ideas.
05-30-2012, 10:43 AM #6X2 what Dipstick says on the Ignition Control Module.
If you have a bad Ground connection, and it looses connection while the engine is running, the Ign. Con. Mod. with fry.Pavement sucks... :grrrrrr:
1994 K1500 4x4 Ext. Cab
PCM chip and Xenon 8000k bulbs
350cu.in bored over .050"
balanced Crank, 10:1 compression
Flat top pistons,cam,ported heads
Option Racing Cold Air Intake
Holley Throttle Body Spacer
Accell Igition, 45kv coil
FloTech Headers, no CATs, dual exhuast
Goodyear Silent Armor A/T 305/70-16
Pioneer SupertunerIII CD USB Bluetooth
Kicker ZX200.2 ZX Amp
Kicker Audio COMP 10" Subwoofer
07-27-2012, 04:45 PM #7I am having the same problem. I don't know much about engines and am learning as I go, but would a bad ground to the battery have an issue with spark? I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, just curious.
conceptualbass1-any luck with the truck, I personally am starting to run out of patience, lol.
07-27-2012, 07:48 PM #8Yes, that too would be an issue.
However, you would get nothing when trying to start, let alone a spark issue.
07-27-2012, 08:45 PM #9So I am having the same problem, and thought maybe I had a ground issue. I replaced the battery to intake ground and now it feels like my truck is going to start, but does not. I also looks like the plugs are not getting fuel because when I pull them, they are dry, but I can smell gas when I try and start my truck.
Similar Threads
97 Suburban K1500 5.7 won't start, but turns over fine,has spark and is getting fuel.
By boycbronco in forum Chevy Suburban Forum (GMC Yukon XL)Replies: 8Last Post: 08-26-2011, 08:44 PM -
K1500 5.7L Suburban Vortec has no spark
By barneyfife912a in forum GM PowertrainReplies: 0Last Post: 08-11-2011, 10:47 PM -
97-98 k1500 dash compatable with a 95 k1500?
By Lifted_Bowtie in forum General Chevy & GM Tech QuestionsReplies: 5Last Post: 12-11-2010, 05:51 PM -
Chevrolet : C/K Pickup 1500 K1500 LIFTED SHOW TRUCK 1996 K1500 4x4 Silverado
By Steve in forum Chevy Trucks For Sale eBayReplies: 0Last Post: 07-30-2010, 08:00 PM -
78 No Spark
By albatross in forum Chevy C/K Truck ForumReplies: 1Last Post: 12-02-2007, 01:50 PM


text:
I am starting a new character called Raven. Here is the concept piece drawn up by a friend of mine Buenaventura.
I am starting on the anatomy first, and then moving on to the clothing and accessories.
Any comments and critiques are welcome.
I am starting a new character called Raven. Here is the concept piece drawn up by a friend of mine Buenaventura.
I am starting on the anatomy first, and then moving on to the clothing and accessories.
Any comments and critiques are welcome.
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
? Why post these images of Nickz free ztool without giving him the credit.???
CG Portfolio:
I learned anatomy from NickZ's free ztool, but the work is not his. This is just the base of human anatomy without the face, clothing, and accessories. I would hope it looks similar to NickZ's anatomy since that was my reference.Originally Posted by calum5ZB
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
Hi again,
A misunderstanding Im sure,Im not looking to flame you its just you didnt mention Nickz base was used and that you'd smoothed down the muscles and rebuilt your ones. It just looked like you forgot to mention Nickz generosity with the best free base male mesh ever made,thats all my point was.Its obvious its Nickz model,I have it and have used it.About your work on this,your new abs look a bit hard on the edges and flat right now.That may be what you want once clothings placed over ?
Anyway,goodluck with this one.I have enjoyed some of your other works like the cyborg and the robot.
No ill intentions ment.
Regards cal
CG Portfolio:
You are quite right Calum5ZB, I did not mention the use of NickZ's tool being used as a reference or starting point and for that I am sorry. I really should give credit for such a helpful tool. It can be found hereOriginally Posted by calum5ZB
I deleted everything but the lowest sub D level and worked up from there with NickZ's tool as reference. Anytime I got lost or thought something looked incorrect, I had an amazing reference to help me through.
I feel like a fool for not mentioning that, and I actually appreciate you bringing it up. Many thanks to NickZ, without his tool helping me learn anatomy, this would never have came out looking half as good as it does.
Thank you for the kind words about my previous works. I have only really finished 1 or 2 works in Zbrush, the rest were learning experiences and getting a grasp on the app. The Cyborg is unfinished, but one of my favorites that I need to get done some time soon. I put it to the side in order to start some new things, but I will definitely finish it. Thank you again Calum5ZB for pointing out my lack of credit to NickZ
and lastly, here is a link to NickZ's Blog
AMAZING stuff there.
Last edited by Aberrant; 01-23-10 at 01:30 PM.
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
Definatley resembles JI,really good so far.Lets see this grow some more ! cal
CG Portfolio:
Thanks Calum5ZB I used a ton of reference photos, many at different ages so it was hard to focus on one image as reference, but that might be better I didn't do that anyway. I plan on doing the hair separate. I have been using 3DS Max for years, but now I want to dive into an entire project in Maya. Wish me luck! haha.
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
This may be helpful for those who want to see a visual representation of what the cavity map sliders do.
Here is a chart I made with about an hour of my time. I took curiosity a little too far but I hope this can be helpful to some people.
It reads as labeled: Intensity = Rows, Focal Shift = Columns.
I used three values for intensity, 1, 5, and 10. (Bottom To Top)
I used 5 values for the focal shift slider. -50, -20, 0, 20, and 50. (Left to right)
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
thanks man, yeah absolutly helpful....
Saved! Have you done this for AO too?
No I have not but I will get on it if you like. Glad to see people are interested.
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
Here you go for anyone interested, the Ambient Occlusion charts.
I will post them in two images, the first is all at Intensity level 1.
The Scan Distance runs Left to Right in Rows low values to high (.1, .5, and 1)
The Aperture runs Vertically in Columns from High to Low values (90, 45, and 5)
What I Noticed:
The processing took too long on highest level 6 so I went down to lvl4
Increasing the scan dist increases processing time. This is because the scan distance is pretty much the amount of coverage or ammount of Occlusion. Increasing this adds more shading.
Decreasing the Aperture decreases the Occlusion effect on mid or low range areas. Only the darkest areas will show with a low aperture. I suggest leaving it at 90. 45 Produced ok results, but 90 kept all ranges of occlusion, 45 only had the darker parts.
Of course the intensity is the strength, this is like a multiplier. Take a look and compare the Intensity 1 to the Intensity 5 chart. They are identical except for the intensity.
Last edited by Aberrant; 01-29-10 at 11:46 PM.
Life Is The Temporary Break Away From Nothingness.
put this into zbrush wiki....
That is awesome! How long did these take to render for you? AO crashes my zbrush usually. Also how do you paint these since these are mask?
Last edited by womball; 01-30-10 at 09:55 AM.


text:
Jeff Yeager, who normally writes in this space about going green by saving money, has a new book out, The Cheapskate Next Door. To find out what he learned while researching the book, including many interviews he did with "cheapskates" around the country, we decided to turn the spotlight back oh him, and ask some questions of our own. Here's the result:
The Daily Green Editors: What is the worst hating anyone has done on you for being cheap?
Jeff Yeager: Well, of course, I don't condone being dishonest or greedy or unkind when I talk about being a "cheapskate." Just the opposite. For me -- and the folks I talk about in my new book -- it's all about being less materialistic, less focused on amassing money and stuff, and more focused on amassing a quality of life that money can't buy. It's truly about enjoying life more, by spending and consuming less. So, no, I generally don't have people hating me because I'm cheap, as I've just defined it.
That said, I do occasionally have people tell me that folks like me caused the current recession, or that we're being unpatriotic because we're not "good consumers." I've ranted on that topic before here on The Daily Green, so I won't repeat myself. I like to conserve when it comes to my blood pressure, too, not just conserve resources and money.
What do you think is your greatest cheap accomplishment?
Well, there is the five-pound can of garbanzo beans I once scored for 69 cents on sale -- slightly dented, of course. That's like a cheapskate trophy for me. But honestly, I think it's that, largely through the use of humor (most of it at my own expense), I've been able to engage people in a discussion about some very serious issues -- the impact of consumption on the planet, solving the world's problems by being more charitable, valuing what's really important in life over simply buying more stuff. I'd like to think that, because I try to add a laugh track to most of what I write, I'm reaching at least some folks who otherwise would never engage in such a discussion.
See 50 Healthy Foods for Under $1 a Pound
You mention some pretty extreme examples of cheapskates in your new book -- dumpster divers, a woman who uses her used Q-tips to detail the inside of her car, a number of cheapskates who consider underwear to be an optional luxury. Do you really expect most people to live like that?
No, of course not. And taken in the context of the entire book, as you know, those are truly just a handful of stories, examples of what I call "bizarre cheapskate behavior." But they do show what's possible, how different people live...plus, frankly, they add color and entertainment value to the book. In fact, the thing I'm proudest about when it comes to the new book, is that I think it has something to offer -- some ways to live happier on less -- for everybody, regardless of your family situation or lifestyle. So, don't worry, I'm not asking you to give up your tighty whiteys.
If you could do your life over, what would you be more cheap about? Less cheap?
"Less cheap?" I have a reputation to uphold, you know, so I'll have to take the fifth on that one. "More cheap?" I've been pretty open in both of my books [the previous one is The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches] about a couple of times in my life when I've lost focus on what's really important -- which, by the way, are usually things in life that come without a price tag -- family, friendships, time to think, time to just love life. Inevitably, at least in my own experiences, those were times in my life when I let the pursuit of money and stuff take over too much of my time and energy. Who knows, maybe it was a reaction to those periods in my life that set me on the course I'm on today, a professional cheapskate. But looking back at them, I do regret that I wasted those hours, days, whatever waging my own personal war-for-more.
What are some things you should never buy cheap?
Tools, for one. Like a lot of the frugal folks I interviewed for my book, I'm a big believer in learning to do things myself -- not just to save money, but to be more self-sufficient and expand your life experience by learning new skills. As I like to say, my goal in life is to be Renaissance Miser. With tools, whether they're hand tools or power tools, you generally get what you pay for, which isn't the case with so many other consumer products. If you invest as much as you can afford in quality tools, the projects you undertake will turn out better and the work will be more enjoyable, and so you'll be motivated to do more things for yourself in the future.
Is it ok to be cheap on a date?
I suppose you should really be asking my wife that question. (laugh) In fact the other day she said, "Jeff, can't we just once go out to dinner and a movie without having to stop at the blood bank first?" Sorry, that's one of my favorite poooooor wife jokes. But, seriously, regardless of what your attitude is about money, you'd better openly share your feelings about money with anyone you're in a relationship with, right from the start. Money differences result in more divorces than just about any other factor. That doesn't mean you can't have a successful relationship if one person is a cheapskate and the other is a spendthrift, but the most important thing is to be open about money matters from the very start. In the survey I did for my new book, I found that the "cheapskates" polled divorce at only about half the national average, and time and again they cited "communication about finances" as a key to maintaining happy marriages and other long-term relationships.
How do greens actually bridge the gap with cheapskates who aren't already green?
Huh, that's an interesting question, because I really see it the other way around. As I've said, there are a lot of greenies who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk when it comes to realizing that the greenest thing they can probably do is consume -- and therefore spend -- less. Americans are only 5% of the world's population, but we consume 30% of the world's resources. According to the World Wildlife Fund, if everyone in the world consumed at the same level as Americans, it would take three planet Earths to support that level of consumption.
In your new book, you say that the current popularity of the green movement in America is largely driven by "the very thing that the movement should be seeking to change...rampant consumerism." Please explain.
Yes, I think there's some hypocrisy in the current green movement in America. I think it has become a "cause de stuff." That is, the popularity of the current green movement in America seems to me to be fueled by the fact that now there's cool, expensive, "green" stuff we can buy. I'm not so sure most greenies are as interested in saving the planet as they are in owning the latest, cool, green designer products. I'll say it again, because most people don't want to hear it: If you're a typical American, the greenest thing you can do is consume less!
Enter to win a copy of Jeff Yeager's new book
What do you think is the lamest green activity? Least cheap? Where do greens get it right?
Lamest? Well, so-called "green fashion" comes to mind. Only a fraction of the clothing thrown away in America is "worn-out." The greenest clothes you can wear are the ones that are already in your closet or for sale secondhand at a thrift store, not some new, expensive, "green" clothing made out of hemp or some such thing. In general, any time you get rid of something you already own that's still usable in order to replace it with something else because it's "green," you're likely to be wasting both the Earth's resources and your money. Once something is truly worn out, like an appliance for example, then replacing it with a new green, Energy Star version often makes both environmental and economic sense.
For your book, you surveyed and interviewed hundreds of your fellow "cheapskates" across the country. What did you find out about their views and behavior when it comes to the environment and the environmental movement?
About half of the cheapskates I surveyed expressed strong or fairly strong environmental convictions, but, interestingly, many of the others said they had little or no interest or concern regarding environmental issues. I didn't ask in the survey if, for example, they believe in global warming, but I'd guess that a good many of them don't. I say that's interesting, because, again, their behavior -- wasting less, consuming less, repurposing stuff, wearing things out -- is, in my opinion, the epitome of "living green," even if that's not their motivation or they don't consider themselves environmentalists.
Unlike most other environmentalists, you don't seem very committed to "buying locally." In fact you write a lot about the possible advantages of shopping at places like big-box/membership warehouse stores and dollar stores. Isn't that a bit hypocritical on your part?
Well, call it what you will. As you know, I've been an ardent environmentalist for almost 40 years, but I just see this issue differently than most. I've made my case before here on The Daily Green about how shopping at big-box stores can be a very green choice, and how even at dollar stores you can find affordable items to make your life a bit greener. In my writing and in my own life, I always try to balance idealism with practicality. It'd be great if everything we consumed came from within the same zip code where we live, but I think that's economically impossible. Keep in mind, I'm writing for many people with very limited incomes, and whom you'll probably never recruit as Sierra Club members, but maybe you can make them a little greener in the context of the lives they already lead. That's the practicality I'm talking about.
How do the cheapskates you surveyed feel about buying organic foods and vegetarianism?
They're no more or no less likely to be vegetarians or buy organic foods than the average American, which is only about 5%-10% of the general population. That said, they do tend to eat lower on the food chain, and many said that they have "meatless" days at least one or two days out of every week. A majority grow at least some of their own food. They also spend a lot less on food prepared outside the home, including fast food...in fact, they spend almost 90% less than the typical family spends on food prepared outside the home. Again, their diets -- which from what I've seen are significantly healthier than the typical American diet -- are influenced as much by their desire or need to live frugally as by anything else, and part of that is about trying to stay healthy, rather than face higher medical costs.
Are there ways you wish our government was cheaper? Less cheap?
I'm actually one of those people who believe that government is -- or at least can be -- a good value in terms of the taxes we pay. I've written about this before in my Green Cheapskate blog. As an example, I cringe at what it costs to get my 20-foot driveway repaved every ten years, but in comparison I think the millions of miles of paved roads it connects me to are a terrific value for my tax dollars. That doesn't mean that I support everything government spends money on, or that there isn't wasteful spending on the part of government, or things I wish they would fund, but don't. What's that old saying, "It's the worst possible system, except for every other system"?
Would you shop for groceries at the 33-cent store, saving the "dollar store" for your wedding, a la the Simpsons? Would you eat the discount Mexican plankton? (ha ha)
You mean, "How cheap will I go?" I think I'm still probing those depths, although I refuse to clean out my own septic tank with a bucket, like a cheapskate neighbor of ours does (and he wonders why we never invite him over for dinner.) Seriously, though, almost without exception, whenever I choose to economize further and make money a less important part of my life, I find I'm happier because of it. As Gandhi said, "Live simply, so that others may simply live."
Jeff Yeager is the author of The Cheapskate Next Door and The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches. His website is www.UltimateCheapskate.com. Connect with Jeff Yeager on Twitter and Facebook.
Friend TDG on Facebook and Follow TDG on Twitter
Enter your city or zip code to get your local temperature and air quality and find local green food and recycling resources near you.


text:
Walgreens to Acquire Duane Reade
DEERFIELD, Ill.–Walgreens has struck a deal to acquire the Duane Reade pharmacy chain from Oak Hill Capital Partners. The purchase price, all in cash, is $1.075 billion, which includes the assumption of debt, according to a joint statement from the two companies. The deal includes all 257 Duane Reade stores in the New York City … More »


text:
Logo: berry and leaf tree, ID: 95866
, Posted: Thu, 05/24/2012 - 15:17
Logo details
A sweet tree in shades of blue with berries and bursting leaves. keyideas: apartment, branches, deciduous, leaf, leaves, limb, limbs, pine, realty, rock, rocks, roof, taupe, tree, trees, paper, crafts, retail, arts, tree, blue, tree, berry, berries, natural, organic, trees, fruit, elm,
Possible uses
a great logo template for: grounds maintenance, lawn care, park grounds keeper, eco or ecology awareness, publisher, travel, blog, senior center, real estate, realty, realtor, housing development, apartment or condos, residential neighborhood, cottages, counseling or therapy, rehabilitation, garden center, bed and breakfast, cottage
Included in price
- Watermark removed from logo artwork.
- Full and exclusive rights. Logo sold only once.
- Various formats available: EPS, PNG, JPG and others on request.
- Designer contact information.
- Price includes text changes.
- Price includes color changes.
- Price includes minor design changes.


text:
Lanta Thip House Reviews
- Info
- |
- Rates
- |
- Map & Directions
- |
- Reviews
- |
- Facilities
Reviews & Ratings Explained
The rating percentage is calculated from customers who booked within the last 12 months.
All ratings and reviews are based on the feedback and opinions of the customers who submitted them and do not express the opinions of Hostelworld.com. This way, you get an up-to-the-minute opinion of just how good a hostel really is.
Read our review guidelines »
The only complaint is the location. It's a kilometre's walk to ANYTHING, including a beach. But the staff is great, the room is clean and perfect. But still, you can get just as nice a place close to a beach for less money. If you want to stay here, you'll have to rent a scooter or hire tuk-tuks. Luckily, they're around in abundance.
- Globetrotter
- Anonymous
- Canada
- Male, 41+
- (29 reviews)
I would definitely return here. The rooms were spacious, modern and clean. The manager was extremely friendly and welcoming. She spared no effort in organising trips for us and made our stay very easy and enjoyable. The location is quiet but very relaxing. Klong Khong beach is just 5mins walk away and is incredibly beautiful. There are also plenty of nice restaurants and beach parties further north along the beach (you could walk or take a tuk tuk). Thanks for a lovely stay!
- Avid Traveller
- Anonymous
- Ireland
- Female, 18-24
- (14 reviews)


text:
on 04-10-2011 11:40 PM
on 05-10-2011 04:26 PM
on 07-10-2011 11:24 AM
on 07-10-2011 01:11 PM
You quoted that the ps3 has been in you DMZ for a Long Time. Have you tried checking the ip address the ps3 is getting and if it matches what is in the router also it might be worth trying to clear the Router log of who is connected as it does jam it up if devices are connecting. ie new laptops computers and equipment.
on 07-10-2011 01:23 PM
07-10-2011 04:13 PM - edited 07-10-2011 04:14 PM
This sounds to me like a DNS issue.
In your PS3 web browser, type in the following: http://126.96.36.199
If the page load then the issue is with your default DNS. In this case, set up your PS3's networking with an advanced configuration and leave everything as automatic except the DNS setting. Set your primary DNS to: 220.127.116.11 and Secondary to 184.108.40.206 (This is Google's public DNS service).
Let us know how you go.
Here, you can post questions regarding any technical problem you may be
Before using this section, be sure to check out our
Technical Solutions board and follow the instructions there to see if your
problem has already been solved.
To use this board, simply post your question and wait for it to be answered. Your question may be given
an 'Accepted Solution' – this is an answer which has been accepted as the best solution to your problem.
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]


text:
Cross-Number Puzzle #3
If your child loves a challenge, drill her on her decimal know-how with this Cross-Number Puzzle featuring decimal addition. An inventive twist on the crossword, the Cross-Number Puzzle uses answers to math problems instead of little-known facts to fill in the blanks (some say it's easier that way!).
Updated on Nov 12, 2010
Education.com PLUS Benefits
- Access printable workbooks
- Download worksheets faster
- Create custom workbooks


text:
Singapore Dry Cleaning Hotels + Motels
Know When You're Going?
More Search OptionsHotel Amenities
- Dry Cleaning
Hotels by Type
- Motels
"I booked this hotel for 3 nights for my honeymoon. I called the hotel 3 days in advan... Read more"
"I won't bore you with the restaurant/room descriptions; Suffice to say its a swanky p... Read more"
"i cant say much but looking at the ballroom makes me feel wanna stay longer as i atte... Read more"
"This hotel is a fine value and in an excellent location. The staff is very polite. ... Read more"
Note: The nightly rates shown above do not yet include Tax Recovery Charge & Service Fees or (if applicable) Extra Person Fees, Child Fees, Additional Mandatory Hotel Charges or optional incidentals, such as parking, room service or movies.