How Did December 25th become Christmas?

In Western Christianity Christmas is normally celebrated on December 25^th, but I am sure everyone nowadays has heard stories that claim that Jesus couldn't have possibly been born on that day or was he? Well, was he really born on December 25^th? Honestly, the oldest Gospel which is Mark’s Gospel does not contain a Nativity story as Mathew and Luke. St. Paul does not really speak or say anything about Christmas or about celebrating it in his writings. Moreover, the only thing that is documented in Scriptures or the New Testament canon that was celebrated was the Eucharist or Communion. So, why is Christmas celebrated and why on December 25^th? If you really want to know the answer to this question than I highly recommend that you read a Bible History Daily article written by Andrew McGowan from the Biblical Archaeology Society which is titled: How December 25 Became Christmas. I greatly enjoyed reading this well researched article that brings new light and detail as to why Christmas is celebrated on this day. I hope you enjoy and are enlightened by what you read. Merry Christmas and the link to the article is below.

How December 25 Became Christmas – Biblical Archaeology Society


Reference:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

Yet another Post on the Shroud of Turin

I have done other posts on the Shroud of Turin, and I am almost convinced that the Shroud is indeed authentic, but I cannot prove it. One thing that is certain is that most of the evidence seems to lead in the direction of authenticity.  An article written by Shafer Parker Jr. that is titled: Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age states the following:

"Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, states that by measuring the degradation of cellulose in linen fibers from the shroud, two separate approaches show the cloth is at least 2,000 years old (www.ncregister.com)."

To read more, please follow the link below.

Science Shines New Light on Shroud of Turin’s Age | Daily News | NCRegister.com

Unifying the Faith: The Way in which Scriptures are Viewed is Most Likely the Reason Why There is No Unity Amongst Christians.

Hello readers, I simply thought that a post on this blog's sister blog, Unifying the Faith, was very important; therefore, I shared the link below. Thank you, and I hope you enjoy reading it...blessings!

Unifying the Faith: The Way in which Scriptures are Viewed is Most Likely the Reason Why There is No Unity Amongst Christians.

A Response to the History Channel’s “Bible Secrets Revealed” | Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Hello readers,

I simply wanted to share the link to the Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy blog because I enjoyed reading the response which they gave to the November 13, 2013 program that aired on the History Channel as a new series titled: Bible Secrets Revealed. I really enjoyed reading the response, and I felt that you would as well since after all this is a blog on apologetics, and I am still defending our Faith on here. The link is below. I hope you enjoy reading it. Blessings!

Mo


A Response to the History Channel’s “Bible Secrets Revealed” | Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Happy Birthday To You

Happy Birthday To You,
Happy Birthday To You,
Happy Birthday To Dear, Arango's Apologetics Page
Happy Birthday To You.........

Today marks five years since the birth of this blog. I definitely enjoy writing on here about things that are on my mind with relevance to theology. I hope you enjoy reading it, and I will continue writing on here as often as possible. Feel free to comment on any post whenever you like, and also you are welcome to become a follower if you like, although that is entirely up to you. I hope everyone has a blessed remainder of 2013 and also 2014.

The 95 Theses by Martin Luther

Since today marks the 496th anniversary of the posting of the 95 Theses by Martin Luther which were nailed on the church door at Wittenburg, I thought that I would share them all with you. I hope you enjoy reading them.
 .


1.  When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed
 the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2.  This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance,
 that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3.  Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is
 worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4.  The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true
 inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5.  The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those
 imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

6.  The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it
 has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases
reserved
 to his judgment.  If his right to grant remission in these cases were
 disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

7.  God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all
 things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

8.  The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to
 the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9.  Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the
 pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of
 necessity.

10.  Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying,
 reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

11.  Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory
 were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

12.  In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before
 absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13.  The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far
 as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

14.  Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily
 brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

15.  This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other
 things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the
 horror of despair.

16.  Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and
 assurance of salvation.

17.  It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily
 decrease and love increase.

18.  Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture,
 that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to
 grow in love.

19.  Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of
 them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves
may
 be entirely certain of it.

20.  Therefore the pope, when he uses the words "plenary remission of all
 penalties," does not actually mean "all penalties," but only those imposed by
 himself.

21.  Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is
 absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

22.  As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
 which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

23.  If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at
 all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very
 few.

24.  For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that
 indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25.  That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to
 the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own
 diocese and parish.

26.  The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory,
 not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of
 intercession for them.

27.  They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks
 into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28.  It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and
 avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in
the
 hands of God alone.

29.  Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we
 have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

30.  No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of
 having received plenary remission.

31.  The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really
 penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

32.  Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because
 they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their
 teachers.

33.  Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's
 pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

34.  For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of
 sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35.  They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who
 intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach
 unchristian doctrine.

36.  Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty
 and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

37.  Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the
 blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even
 without indulgence letters.

38.  Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be
 disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the
 divine remission.

39.  It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and
 the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need
 of true contrition.

40.  A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for
 his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes
men
 to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

41.  Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously
 think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

42.  Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying
 of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

43.  Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the
 needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

44.  Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better.  Man
 does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed
 from penalties.

45.  Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him
 by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but
 God's wrath.

46.  Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need,
 they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it
on
 indulgences.

47.  Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter
 of free choice, not commanded.

48.  Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs
 and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

49.  Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if
 they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear
 of God because of them.

50.  Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the
 indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were
 burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

51.  Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give
 of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to
 many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

52.  It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the
 indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

53.  They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the
 preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may
be
 preached in others.

54.  Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or
 larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

55.  It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a
 very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and
 one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be
 preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56.  The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes
 indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of
 Christ.

57.  That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many
 indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

58.  Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the
 pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death,
 and hell for the outer man.

59.  St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the
 church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60.  Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given
 by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

61.  For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the
 remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

62.  The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and
 grace of God.

63.  But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be
 last (Mt. 20:16).

64.  On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most
 acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65.  Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly
 fished for men of wealth.

66.  The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the
 wealth of men.

67.  The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are
 actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

68.  They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when
 compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69.  Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal
 indulgences with all reverence.

70.  But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men
 preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

71.  Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be
 anathema and accursed.

72.  But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence
 preachers be blessed.

73.  Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever
 contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

74.  Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as
 a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

75.  To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even
 if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76.  We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very
 least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

77.  To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater
 graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78.  We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope
 whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel,
spiritual
 powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Co 12[:28].

79.  To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up
 by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is
 blasphemy.

80.  The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread
 among the people will have to answer for this.

81.  This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for
 learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or
from
 the shrewd questions of the laity.

82.  Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love
 and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite
number
 of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?  The
 former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

83.  Again, "Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and
 why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for
 them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84.  Again, "What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a
 consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to
buy
 out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because
 of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?"

85.  Again, "Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in
 actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences
 as though they were still alive and in force?"

86.  Again, "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the
 wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his
 own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87.  Again, "What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect
 contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?"

88.  Again, "What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope
 were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred
 times a day, as he now does but once?"

89.  "Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his
 indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously
 granted  when they have equal efficacy?"

90.  To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and
 not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope
to
 the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

91.  If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and
 intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed,
 they would not exist.

92.  Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ,
 "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

93.  Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross,
 cross," and there is no cross!

94.  Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their
 Head, through penalties, death and hell.

95.  And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations
 rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

Reference:

www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther95.txt

The 95 Theses by Martin Luther

Since today marks the 496th anniversary of the posting of the 95 Theses by Martin Luther which were nailed on the church door at Wittenburg, I thought that I would share them all with you. I hope you enjoy reading them.
 .


1.  When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, "Repent" (Mt 4:17), he willed
 the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2.  This word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance,
 that is, confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3.  Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance; such inner repentance is
 worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh.

4.  The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self (that is, true
 inner repentance), namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

5.  The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those
 imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.

6.  The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it
 has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases
reserved
 to his judgment.  If his right to grant remission in these cases were
 disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.

7.  God remits guilt to no one unless at the same time he humbles him in all
 things and makes him submissive to the vicar, the priest.

8.  The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to
 the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9.  Therefore the Holy Spirit through the pope is kind to us insofar as the
 pope in his decrees always makes exception of the article of death and of
 necessity.

10.  Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of the dying,
 reserve canonical penalties for purgatory.

11.  Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory
 were evidently sown while the bishops slept (Mt 13:25).

12.  In former times canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before
 absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13.  The dying are freed by death from all penalties, are already dead as far
 as the canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

14.  Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily
 brings with it great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater the fear.

15.  This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, to say nothing of other
 things, to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the
 horror of despair.

16.  Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and
 assurance of salvation.

17.  It seems as though for the souls in purgatory fear should necessarily
 decrease and love increase.

18.  Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by Scripture,
 that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to
 grow in love.

19.  Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of
 them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves
may
 be entirely certain of it.

20.  Therefore the pope, when he uses the words "plenary remission of all
 penalties," does not actually mean "all penalties," but only those imposed by
 himself.

21.  Thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is
 absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences.

22.  As a matter of fact, the pope remits to souls in purgatory no penalty
 which, according to canon law, they should have paid in this life.

23.  If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at
 all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very
 few.

24.  For this reason most people are necessarily deceived by that
 indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

25.  That power which the pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to
 the power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own
 diocese and parish.

26.  The pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory,
 not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of
 intercession for them.

27.  They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks
 into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.

28.  It is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and
 avarice can be increased; but when the church intercedes, the result is in
the
 hands of God alone.

29.  Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we
 have exceptions in St. Severinus and St. Paschal, as related in a legend.

30.  No one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less of
 having received plenary remission.

31.  The man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really
 penitent; indeed, he is exceedingly rare.

32.  Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because
 they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their
 teachers.

33.  Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's
 pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him.

34.  For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of
 sacramental satisfaction established by man.

35.  They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who
 intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach
 unchristian doctrine.

36.  Any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty
 and guilt, even without indulgence letters.

37.  Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the
 blessings of Christ and the church; and this is granted him by God, even
 without indulgence letters.

38.  Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be
 disregarded, for they are, as I have said (Thesis 6), the proclamation of the
 divine remission.

39.  It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, at one and
 the same time to commend to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need
 of true contrition.

40.  A Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for
 his sins; the bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalties and causes
men
 to hate them -- at least it furnishes occasion for hating them.

41.  Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously
 think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

42.  Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying
 of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.

43.  Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the
 needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.

44.  Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better.  Man
 does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed
 from penalties.

45.  Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him
 by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but
 God's wrath.

46.  Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need,
 they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it
on
 indulgences.

47.  Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter
 of free choice, not commanded.

48.  Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs
 and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.

49.  Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if
 they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear
 of God because of them.

50.  Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the
 indulgence preachers, he would rather that the basilica of St. Peter were
 burned to ashes than built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

51.  Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give
 of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to
 many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

52.  It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the
 indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security.

53.  They are the enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid altogether the
 preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that indulgences may
be
 preached in others.

54.  Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or
 larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word.

55.  It is certainly the pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a
 very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and
 one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be
 preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56.  The true treasures of the church, out of which the pope distributes
 indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of
 Christ.

57.  That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many
 indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely but only gather them.

58.  Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for, even without the
 pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death,
 and hell for the outer man.

59.  St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the
 church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60.  Without want of consideration we say that the keys of the church, given
 by the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

61.  For it is clear that the pope's power is of itself sufficient for the
 remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself.

62.  The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and
 grace of God.

63.  But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be
 last (Mt. 20:16).

64.  On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most
 acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65.  Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly
 fished for men of wealth.

66.  The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the
 wealth of men.

67.  The indulgences which the demagogues acclaim as the greatest graces are
 actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain.

68.  They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when
 compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

69.  Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal
 indulgences with all reverence.

70.  But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men
 preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.

71.  Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be
 anathema and accursed.

72.  But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence
 preachers be blessed.

73.  Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever
 contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.

74.  Much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as
 a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth.

75.  To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man even
 if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness.

76.  We say on the contrary that papal indulgences cannot remove the very
 least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned.

77.  To say that even St. Peter if he were now pope, could not grant greater
 graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78.  We say on the contrary that even the present pope, or any pope
 whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel,
spiritual
 powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written, 1 Co 12[:28].

79.  To say that the cross emblazoned with the papal coat of arms, and set up
 by the indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is
 blasphemy.

80.  The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread
 among the people will have to answer for this.

81.  This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for
 learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the pope from slander or
from
 the shrewd questions of the laity.

82.  Such as: "Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love
 and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite
number
 of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?  The
 former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

83.  Again, "Why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued and
 why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for
 them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84.  Again, "What is this new piety of God and the pope that for a
 consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to
buy
 out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God and do not rather, because
 of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake?"

85.  Again, "Why are the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in
 actual fact and through disuse, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences
 as though they were still alive and in force?"

86.  Again, "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the
 wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his
 own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"

87.  Again, "What does the pope remit or grant to those who by perfect
 contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings?"

88.  Again, "What greater blessing could come to the church than if the pope
 were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred
 times a day, as he now does but once?"

89.  "Since the pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his
 indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously
 granted  when they have equal efficacy?"

90.  To repress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone, and
 not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope
to
 the ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy.

91.  If, therefore, indulgences were preached according to the spirit and
 intention of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed,
 they would not exist.

92.  Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ,
 "Peace, peace," and there is no peace! (Jer 6:14)

93.  Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross,
 cross," and there is no cross!

94.  Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ, their
 Head, through penalties, death and hell.

95.  And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations
 rather than through the false security of peace (Acts 14:22).

Reference:

www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther95.txt

Millennials and Spirituality

I have been very busy this month of October, and I haven't really had any time to post anything on here: however, I do not like for an entire month to go by without posting at least one thing. So, I want to share an article I ran across which was also written this month which I feel goes well with the main theme on this blog. The article is written for USA TODAY by Dana Sand, a student at Emory University, and it is titled: What do Millennials really seek from religion? The article is very well written, scientific, and informative. In the brief writing piece, Dana said that a “Study found that those who maintain their religion in college were twice as likely to have a close personal friendship with an adult inside the church (http://www.usatoday.com/).”  Moreover, the study said: “those who maintain their religion in college were twice as likely to have a close personal friendship with an adult inside the church, and 90% of those who left never had a church mentor(http://www.usatoday.com/).” In the article, Peter Salim, a student at Carnegie Mellon, is quoted saying that "Christianity is a community-based faith, so fellowship is definitely key in keeping it alive."

In closing, I think that I agree with Peter Salim, Christianity is greatly about fellowship, and that has not changed since the beginnings of the Early Church which is documented in the Book of Acts by Luke. Acts 2:42, reads: "They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (NRSVA)."Well, I hope you have enjoyed reading this post, and God willing I will have more to share next month which will be the 5^th anniversary of this blog. Oh, by the way, the link to the article by Dana Sand is below, I hope you enjoy reading it.

What do Millennials really seek from religion?

References:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/02/millennials-religion-needs/2907073/

New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Bible

An Absolute Right? on Enough Is Enough media

Dear friends and readers,

I normally do not present any topics that are seemingly of political matter on this blog, but I think that I needed to share with you this short 30 minute documentary that is written and directed by Alex Sol. The name of this film is An Absolute Right? The film is about common sense gun reform, and I feel this affects and has affected everyone in our nation in one way or another. I do not want to say too much about the film because I really feel that everyone should watch it, and form their opinion about it. I also think that we should share it with everyone, and especially with our politicians.  I really believe that this film is about “loving God and our neighbor;”consequently, I had to share it on this blog which is mostly about theological matters. Moreover, I would also like to request that you keep Alex, the writer and director, and his family, his wife and daughter, in your prayers. Thank you for reading! This film is educational and informative, and you can find it at the link below.

Sincerely,

Mo

Enough Is Enough media

Francis S. Collins and Books

I want to recommend reading this article about Francis S. Collins which appeared in the New York Times Sunday Book Review section. I simply thought that the article goes well with the topics on this blog, Arango’s Apologetics Page. In case you may not know him, “Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). On August 17, 2009 he was sworn in as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (http://www.genome.gov/10000779).”

Collins was asked the following question: what book has had the greatest impact on you? His answer to the question was the following: "As an atheist evolving to agnosticism, and seeking answers to whether or not belief in God is potentially rational, my life was turned upside down 35 years ago by reading C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity.” I recommend reading the entire article, as well as reading up on Francis S. Collins, and some of the projects which he is involved in. The link to the article I mentioned is below, and I hope you enjoy reading it.

Francis S. Collins - By the Book - NYTimes.com

References:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/francis-s-collins-by-the-book.html?_r=1&

http://www.genome.gov/10000779

Jesus and Paul and Fundamentalism and Salvation

I have basically grown up in Church, mostly in the Evangelical or Protestant denominational side of Christianity, although I do not consider myself such. When it comes to the Scriptures, I personally feel that if Jesus didn’t say anything about a certain topic than perhaps it is not as important to the scope of the Faith. Recently, a friend was saying something in what was seemingly opposition to this way of thinking I maintain. If I remember correctly, he may have said something similar to, perhaps: Jesus never said anything about killing or mutilating children, but that does not mean it is okay. I do agree that we have no documentation about him saying such a thing. However, Jesus did say that we are to “love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and love our neighbor as ourselves,” and he said that these are the greatest two commandments, and all of the law is summed up in them. If we analyze these commandments and practice them, they do sum up all laws because if you love your neighbor, you will not kill or mutilate him or her, at worst. What I mean is that just by speaking about those two commandments, Jesus said enough, and anything else would have been superfluous. Anyhow, I am sure you get the picture. However, this post is not really about that. I just wanted to share my thoughts on what I feel that some may think are contradictory ideas between the things Jesus said and what Paul said in the Scriptures.

Again, this is what some feel are contradictory ideas between the things Jesus said and what Paul said in the Scriptures. Of course, if you, the reader, would like to post your opinion on my post or anything I have said on here before, there is a section below in which you can comment, but let’s not get side-tracked. I also want to be brief, so I will only show a couple of verses. Now, if one takes the verses out of context, it does seem that they are opposing ideas, but when put into context, they are not that opposite at all. So, we begin here!

Jesus said, in John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (RSV).”

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6: 9: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (RSV)?”

Now that I think about it, perhaps some people are right because it sure seems that Jesus was inclusive, and Paul was exclusive, and we all know that Jesus was the Son of God, so Jesus wins. Okay, not so fast, we have to put it to the context litmus test, and see if the message changes.

John 3:16 – 21 says:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God (RSV).”

Okay, this does sound exclusive because it does say: “he who does not believe is condemned already.”But, let’s test Paul, now.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 says:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (RSV)."

Okay, actually, Paul simply elaborated on his exclusivity, but Jesus did say “whosoever believes,” and he is not specific as to what really makes one evil, but Jesus does say: “their deeds were evil.”

Now, I cannot conclude this post here because it seems that we are in some sort of a Fundamentalist Scriptural trap. I also know that neither Jesus, nor Paul believed anyone was good or righteous in the eyes of God, so things are not hopeless. I will show you two verses that reflect this foregoing idea. In Romans 3:10, Paul said: "as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one (RSV)..." In Luke 18: 19, Jesus said: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone (RSV)."In reality, both Jesus and Paul were quoting Psalms 14:1, and it seems that they were both in complete agreement. We are ready for a conclusion, for now! What seems to be in question throughout this post is salvation. Theologically speaking, salvation or soteriology is something that means different things to different Christian denominations. I think that the best way to understand salvation is to try to go with the idea that has been more common in both the Eastern and Western Churches throughout Church history; however, I think that ultimately it is all about God’s mercy and grace, and how we learn to accept and understand it.


References:

RSV Bible

Christians happier than atheists – on Twitter – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

This is a great article about a study of about 2 million tweets from more than 16,000 users on Twitter. The study was of followers of both Atheist and Christians. They studied the feeds of followers of five Atheists which included Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Monica Salcedo and Michael Shermer, and then the five Christians were Pope Benedict XVI, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza and Joyce Meyer.The researchers found or concluded that “Christians tweet with higher frequency words reflecting positive emotions, social relationships and an intuitive style of thinking – the sort that’s gut-driven….This isn't to say that atheists don’t use these words, too, but they out-tweet Christians when it comes to analytic words and words associated with negative emotions (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com).”

My thoughts on this study are that I am not sure that the fact that one uses happy words or such does not really imply that the person is happy. I recently saw an interview with Richard Dawkins on Book TV, and I think that he seems like a happy person, just to defend him on that matter. Of course, this study was about his followers and perhaps they may or may not be happy, but I suppose this study is a start and does point in a certain direction. In all fairness to Atheist also, even Pope Francis recently said: “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone,” the pope told worshipers at morning Mass on Wednesday. “‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone(http://religion.blogs.cnn.com)!”

In conclusion, I am not sure if being Christian means that one is suppose to be happy, although perhaps the ones on twitter seem to be. I do know that James, the Lords brother, said in James 1:2: “Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials… (RSV Bible).” So, perhaps these Christians in the study already have this attitude that James mentions; therefore, the results show a reflection of happiness. I think that last thought is perhaps the reality here. Blessings! Oh, why I just caught myself saying something happy to you the readers, I said blessings…lol. Oh well, again, blessings!

References:

Christians happier than atheists – on Twitter – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/28/christians-happier-than-atheists-at-least-on-twitter/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/

http://www.booktv.org/Program/14698/2013+Book+Expo+America+Fall+Book+Preview+with+Richard+Dawkins+An+Appetite+for+Wonder+The+Making+of+a+Scientist.aspx

RSV Bible

Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

I very much enjoyed reading an article in The Atlantic that was written by Larry Alex Taunton. The article is titled: Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity. In the article a Christian foundation interviewed college nonbelievers about how and why they left religion. Surprisingly, “these students were, above all else, idealists who longed for authenticity, and having failed to find it in their churches, they settled for a non-belief that, while less grand in its promises, felt more genuine and attainable (The Atlantic).” Below is the link to the article.

Listening to Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity - Larry Alex Taunton - The Atlantic

Reference:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/listening-to-young-atheists-lessons-for-a-stronger-christianity/276584/

Unifying the Faith, a New Ecumenism Blog

I wish to announce the creation of the new sister blog to Arango’s Apologetics Page. The name of this new blog is Unifying the Faith. The vision and mission of this blog is stated as follows:

This blog seeks to promote and establish ecumenism among all groups and denominations of the Christian Faith via expressions in written language, and through any means of communication. We seek the promotion of others that are working towards the same common goal, as well. The prayer of Jesus in John 17: 21 was: "I pray that they may all be one…." Ultimately and eternally, the creation of unity among all believers and followers of Christ is sought desiring harmony with and for all of humanity.

Although, there are no posts yet, soon we will be sharing and discussing ideas on the topic of ecumenism. I pray and hope that its purpose is served well on planet Earth. The following is the link to the new site:

Unifying the Faith

My Decision to Become an Atheist after Seeing All These Tragedies Take Place

So, just this week everyone has witnessed on the TV news or on location, if you live there, the aftermath and damages made by the tornadoes in Oklahoma in which lives were lost and houses destroyed. It is truly devastating and horrific what power the weather can have over our lives. Just a short time before this event, we witnessed another disaster at the Boston Marathon in which bombs had been planted by terrorists and many were injured and lives were lost. Just a short time before this, 26 lives were lost in a shooting by a sniper at Sandy Hook Elementary in a small town in Connecticut. Sometime before this event, in Fukushima, Japan we witnessed a nuclear disaster caused by a Tsunami. Sometime before this there was a devastating earthquake in Haiti. I am not even sure if I can keep up with all the terrible things that have been happening around our planet, and in our own neighborhoods. I am sure that many other bad things have taken place and I don’t recall them at this time or perhaps forgot the chronological order in which the ones I mentioned have taken place. Perhaps I say the foregoing because I am overwhelmed by everything, and if we watch the live broadcasts from all the news reports we can become fatigued by all the tragedies. I have heard some say that we have almost become desensitized by all the news, and I am sure that many prefer to sit and watch a sitcom on TV, instead of seeing all the tragedies.

I, for one, do not think I have become desensitized, but instead perhaps overwhelmed and fatigued; however, I cannot seem to be able to ignore these events. So, after seeing all this in Oklahoma and reflecting on all these events I mentioned previously, I decided that I was going to become an atheist. I got mad at God, and said how He could allow all these things to happen and for humanity to withstand so much pain and suffering. Of course, the fact that I am into apologetics makes me aware that this is classic atheistic reasoning, and just because I decide to be mad at God and pretend that He does not exist is not really going to make him go away just because I decided. In fact, the opposite of this foregoing thought is a higher possibility. Regardless, of my temporary stupidity, I decided to stay mad at God and remain an atheist. Well, that probably lasted no more than 3 hours because of Scripture and the Holy Spirit making me aware of the stupidity.

So, what happened that made me reflect and decide to stop this short-lived atheistic trip? Well, I simply began thinking about the Book of Job, and the story of Job which is told in it. I am not going to tell you the story, but I do suggest that you read it one day, if you haven’t because it is possible that it is the oldest book in the Hebrew canon. Anyhow, to make a long story short, Job basically lost almost everything he had at the very beginning of the story. He lost his children and live stock. Jobs wife even told him at one point to “curse God and die.” I am sure you can imagine all the devastation, which is similar to all these tragedies I mentioned before. Now, Job didn't listen to his wife or any of his friends that advised him, but he did question God, and in Chapter 38, God answered him. What did God say to Job? In Chapter 38: 4, God said to Job: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast the understanding (JPS Tanakh).”I think Job got put in his place immediately because he realized that God is! Similar to Job, when I was talking to myself and pursuing this newly found atheism being mad. God said the same thing he said to Job to me: “Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast the understanding (JPS Tanakh).” Honestly, I got put in my place immediately, and the short-lived atheistic trip was over. Furthermore, God also said in my mind what he said to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1:5 which was: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb… (JPS Tanakh).” Well, in my case those words eliminated my atheism entirely. I do understand that perhaps this type of experience will not work with everyone that is atheist by turning them into an instant believer, and I do not wish to offend anyone by oversimplifying their atheism. However, the fact that I believe does not answer why God allows these tragedies completely, but I do understand that He is God and His thoughts are not my thoughts and perhaps I will never know the answer because there is no need to know the answer because the reason is perhaps related to what we do and how do we respond when these tragedies when they occur on our side of the time continuum because I am sure that he knows exactly what his part is with relevance to them outside the time continuum. That last sentence is definitely too long, but I will leave it as is…lol. So, what should we do with these tragedies?

When tragedies occur, my suggestion is to be of assistance if possible, and anything that we can do to help just do it. Jesus said: “Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.” I think that this foregoing advice applies to all things. Whatever we would want for us, we should want for our neighbor, and that includes anything. I think I have said enough for now, but I suppose that my short-lived atheistic experience helped me revisit some of my beliefs and reinforce them a bit. I am not saying that I may not have doubt again in the future, but for now I am good. Blessings to all, and I hope you enjoyed reading this post.

Reference:

JPS Tanakh

Brief Thoughts on Hell, Part 4: Hellbound the Movie

For part 4 of this series on Hell, I am simply promoting Hellbound, the movie. Hellbound is a documentary by Kevin Miller that asks the questions: Does hell exist? If so, who ends up there, and why? “Hellbound?”

Below are two reviews on the film:

“A brave and refreshing documentary”

~ Huffington Post

“…stimulating documentary on the hot topic of eternal damnation…”

~ Justin Chang, Variety

My suggestion is that you go to its website and start getting acquainted with the movie, and then see it as soon as possible. The link to the trailer is below.

Does Hell Exist? If So, Who Ends Up There, And Why? - Hellbound the Movie

Reference:

http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/

Brief Thoughts on Hell, Part 3: Durante degli Alighieri

Durante degli Alighieri, in short, is known as Dante to us today. Dante lived from about 1265 to 1321. Now, in case you didn’t know, why he is relevant to the subject of Hell, I am about to tell you. I am also glad that this post includes the phrase “brief thoughts” because it implies that I am not going to write too much about the subject, and that is good because there is a lot to say about Dante with relevance to his role in Western history, but I am keeping my comments short. However, I highly recommend that you research him when you have the time. And, indeed, much has been written about this man, Dante Alighieri. Dante was born in Florence Italy, and he is the author of The Divine Comedy (Divina Commedia in Italian). The Divine Comedy is an epic poem which illustrates Dante's journey through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. Serious and scholarly works were always written in Latin during the time in which Dante lived; therefore, it was considered a comedy because it had been written in Italian. The poem is an allegorical view of life after death that basically represented the theological idea on this subject that the Western Church had adopted up to this moment in time. Moreover, some of the perceptions represented in this literary work are still held by many today.

My thought on the book, which I highly recommend reading, is that Dante was seemingly at times making literal assumptions on the subject just like many do today. However, the book was perhaps a metaphor of the politics of Dante’s time. In Bells Chiming the Eleventh Hour: Dante Alighieri's Inferno and Three Processes of Civilization, Peter Y. Clark said:

“The first and most obvious influence in Dante's life and in the Inferno appears within the scope of Florentine politics. Dante,like many Italians of his day, felt that to be a decent citizen one must be politically active; he possessed no shortcomings there. However, he not only was a man of action, but he was a man of thought; and hence his civic life reflects his opinions about political events.

Dante considered himself a citizen of Florence always, even in exile. He loved the city with an unyielding and undying intensity. As A. P. d'Entreves points out, she "is the root of his knowledge of and interest in politics," and his pride in her is evident in his concern for her.1 Tirelessly he asked her fate from all in hell, and when asked about his origin he declared: " Where the lovely Arno flows, there was I born and raised, in the great city/ "2”

Well, before this is no longer just a brief thought, I will stop writing here. However, Dante’s view of Hell has been very influential in Western history, and I encourage everyone to study his life and works. Until next time, for now!

2 Allen Mandelbaum, The Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri: Inferno: A Verse Translation, Notes by Allen Mandelbaum, Gabriel Marruzzo, and Larry Magnus (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), XXIII, 94-95. All further references to this work are in the text.


Reference:

Bells chiming the 11th hour : Dante Alighieri's Inferno and three processes of civilization.
By: Clark, Peter Y.. Source: Christianity and Literature, 35 no 2 Wint 1986, p 5-15.

Brief Thoughts on Hell, Part 2

Actually, for my Brief Thoughts on Hell, Part 2, I am recommending that you read Matt Anslow's post which is titled: jesus and hell (part 1): weeping and gnashing of teeth. I think that he has some really good thoughts on the matter. I hope you enjoy reading it. His post is found at life.remixed the blog by matt anslow which is at the following link:

http://liferemixed.net/2011/10/12/jesus-and-hell-1/

Reference:

jesus and hell (part 1): weeping and gnashing of teeth | life.remixed

The Nicene Creed

The Nicene Creed is the creed that is mostly used in Christian liturgy for the profession of the faith. It was first adopted in its original form in the year 325 at the First Council of Nicaea which would be geographically in present day Turkey. The creed is a form of measure which encompasses the correct general belief held by Christians. The Creed today reads as follows in the Church of England:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is,
seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.



Reference:
http://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/newpatterns/contents/sectione.aspx

1 Corinthians 15

First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, is amazing because it contains the historical creed about the resurrection of Christ that is perhaps the reason the Church grew, and has grown to more than two billion today. Below are verses three to verse nine of the chapter.


[3]For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
[4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
[5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
[6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
[7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
[8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
[9] For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

-St. Paul(Bible, Revised Standard Version)


Reference:

Bible, Revised Standard Version

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=5230210

The Resurrection of Jesus - Dr. Gary R. Habermas (On Guard Conference)

Happy Easter! I recommend watching this video, at the link below.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMqertodsVk

Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?

Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court? This question was asked by our Lord's brother in James, verse 6 of Chapter 2. It seems that the world has not changed much in the past two millenniums when we read this chapter in context. Well, I really do not want to do any sort of exposition on this chapter. Moreover, I would rather have the Holy Spirit speak to you as you read James 2: 1-8.

James 2

[1] My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.
[2] For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
[3] and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet,"
[4] have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
[5] Listen, my beloved brethren. Has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him?
[6] But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?
[7] Is it not they who blaspheme that honorable name which was invoked over you?
[8]If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well.



Reference:

Revised Standard Version(Holy Bible)

The Bible & Same-Sex Relations: A Biblical Analysis from an Incarnational Perspective by the Rev. Ken Howard

Since the month of February is over in one more day this year. I have been thinking about what I wanted to post for the month on this blog, Arango’s Apologetics Page. Well, I actually have been busy and really haven’t had time to post anything of my own; however, I believe that the best article I have read in a long time is written by Ken Howard. His blog is The Paradoxy Center for Incarnational Christianity. Rev. Ken Howard is Rector at St Nicholas Church and Director of the Paradoxy Center at St Nicholas Church in Germantown, Maryland. The article which I believe is the best I have read in a while, and certainly this month, at least, is titled: The Bible & Same-Sex Relations: A Biblical Analysis from an Incarnational Perspective. The link to the article is as follows:

https://docs.google.com/a/practicingparadoxy.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cHJhY3RpY2luZ3BhcmFkb3h5LmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6NzNiMDQxZWNlZjBkMTA4Nw


I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I did, and I hope that you have a pleasant remainder to the month of February. Blessings!


Reference:

The Paradoxy Center for Incarnational Christianity (http://networkedblogs.com/I1GrS.)

Brief Thoughts on Hell, Part 1- Gehenna

I decided that I wanted to write a bit on the subject of Hell. I know that the word brings many eschatological ramifications to many people’s mind, although to some it brings very little. Moreover, some Theologians would perhaps argue that Hell exists, but not in a sense that if you do not have the correct Theology you will go there in an eternal damnation. Of course, I am not here to argue. I just want to present some thoughts on it. I do know that in the Gospels, Jesus mentions Hell several times. One of the places where he mentioned Hell is in Luke 12:5, when he said:

“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him (ESV Bible)!”

However, when Jesus was speaking about Hell, he did not use the word Hell. Gehenna is the word that Jesus used for what we call Hell today. But, what was Gehenna? Gehenna could be briefly defined as follows:

"In the Bible, the Valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem. At one time it was apparently the site of human sacrifices and was therefore considered unclean, becoming the place where the city's refuse was dumped and burned. In Jewish thought it came to represent a place where sinners are punished and in the New Testament it is a name for hell (...The Macmillan Encyclopedia...)."

Well, I am trying to be brief, so this is perhaps a good introduction on the subject. I am not going to get into Dante's Inferno, at this time, and all of the levels of Hell mentioned in his work, but perhaps later on I will discuss some ideas found in the work. I did read a book recently titled: Four Views on Hell, and I quite enjoyed it. Well, I hope you enjoyed this brief introduction.

References:

ESV Bible

Gehenna. (2003). In The Macmillan Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://www.credoreference.com/entry/move/gehenna