Bob Can’t Let It Go!
In yet another post attempting to refute my own post about the early Church, “Dr” Bob Thiel has returned to the subject of “First Century: Saturday or Sunday.” I’ll give Bob one thing – He clearly recognizes that this history goes to the heart of the viability of the Armstrong Churches of God’s teachings about Torah observance and the continuing obligation of “TRUE” Christians to keep the Sabbath. For Bob, the real history of the early Church represents an existential threat to Armstrongism! He understands that the narrative about when Sunday observance began is essential to the ACOG’s raison d’etre!
First, the narrative which I presented about the Council of Jerusalem was Scriptural and recognized by most scholars as reflecting what actually happened there. You can’t get much more objective than artificial intelligence (unperturbed by human biases), and my Bing copilot has this to say about that event: “The Council of Jerusalem was a conference of the Christian Apostles in Jerusalem about 50 CE. It was held to decide as to the authority of the law of Moses and adjust the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. The council decreed that Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Mosaic Law of the Jews. It is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics.”
Likewise, BibleGateway’s Encyclopedia of the Bible had this to say about that event:
“COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (συνέδριον, G5284; tr. “council” in every occurrence in the NT, RSV. Heb. סַנְהֶדְרִין), Biblical meaning: “an ecclesiastical assembly for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline” (RHD). Used in reference to the first general church Council recorded in Acts 15, where the word “council” per se does not occur; not to be confused with the Jewish Sanhedrin.
1. The Council’s occasion and issue. The Council of Jerusalem most likely occurred about a.d. 48 or 49, and prob. between the first and second missionary journeys of Paul, following a temporary visit of Paul and Barnabas to the church at Antioch of Syria. In Acts 15:1-5 Luke describes the occasion for the Council. Galatians 2:1-10 is now viewed by most scholars as Paul’s general, though non-chronological, account of the same event.
Certain believing Christian Jews of the sect of the Pharisees (commonly known as Judaizers) regarded submission to Jewish legal rites, but circumcision in particular, as essential to the salvation of the Gentiles and their admission to membership in the Christian Church (Acts 15:1). Representatives of this sect visited the flourishing Jew-Gentile Christian Church at Antioch of Syria as purported emissaries of the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 2:12), while Paul and Barnabas were ministering there, and evidently during a temporary visit of Peter also (2:11). Their insistence upon circumcision of the Gentile believers as essential to personal salvation and to membership in the Church appeared to Paul to negate faith in Christ as adequate for justification, and thus in effect render void Christ’s death on the cross (2:21). Paul stoutly withstood them and even severely rebuked Peter for his social, though perhaps nonreligious, segregation (2:11-20). Peter’s reprehensible conduct was most likely due to fear produced by the ostentation of the Judaizers at Antioch, rather than by any disposition to compromise the vital issue of the conditions for Gentile salvation. However, even in this he was not guiltless (see Acts 11:1-18). These Judaizers precipitated the single greatest crisis of the Early Church, and one of the greatest of all church history. They threatened a cleavage within the Jew-Gentile Christian Church that might never have been healed, and which might well have precluded the universal worldmission of the Gospel.
The decision to send a delegation, including Paul and Barnabas, from Antioch to the Jerusalem mother church for an official decision in the dispute evidently had a twofold authorization; (1) the Antioch church (Acts 15:2, 3), and (2) divine revelation (Gal 2:1, 2; cf. Acts 13:2-4). Titus, an uncircumcised Gr. believer, was among the “certain other” delegates (15:2) sent to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, 2) where he became a test case. Paul refused to yield to the demands of the Judaizers at the Jerusalem Council that Titus be circumcised, lest by such a concession they win the right of their position before the Council and thus impose the burden of the Mosaic law upon all Gentile believers. Paul was sustained by the Council and Titus later became one of his most trusted co-workers in the Gentile world mission.” (See Encyclopedia of the Bible: Council of Jerusalem)
Hence, it is easily verifiable that the narrative which I presented about the Jerusalem Council was neither novel nor inconsistent with the understanding of the vast majority of Biblical scholarship on the subject. Indeed, what I posted about the Jerusalem Council is sustained by simply opening your own copy of the Bible to Acts 15 or typing that event into the search engine on your own computer! In other words, it doesn’t take a whole lot of intensive research and effort!
Similarly, the ACOG’s narrative about the adoption of Pagan practices by the Church has been thoroughly discredited by both Biblical and historical scholars. Once again, as Herbert Armstrong used to say, “you don’t have to take my word for it” – the veracity of my assertions on the subject are easily verified with a few clicks of your own computer. (See Christian Sunday Observance Did NOT Originate in Pagan Practices) Sure, the Romans referred to the first day of the week as the day of the Sun, but they also referred to the Sabbath as the day of Saturn. Once again, all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) affirm that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples on the first day of the week – the one that the pagans referred to as Sunday! To ignore the importance of that event (Christ’s resurrection) to early Christians is tantamount to discounting a great deal of the text of the New Testament!
Finally, I have provided numerous links to the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers over the years (See Early Christian Writings: Church Fathers). Once again, the truth of my assertions are only a few clicks away on your own computer! I have also included many excerpts from these writings in previous posts on this subject (See Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday). Unfortunately, Bob’s narrative about Church history does NOT square with the available evidence from both Scripture and history. The Sabbath pointed to our rest in Christ (See Hebrews 4). Unlike Bob, I have no animus for the Sabbath, and I have no special attachment to Sunday (Indeed, I continue to personally observe the Sabbath). Nevertheless, Bob’s narrative that there was a Great Conspiracy to suppress Sabbath observance and replace it with the pagan Sunday is simply NOT consistent with the available evidence.
Lonnie Hendrix
8 comments:
Its posts like this with its pictures/videos that make me love this blog! The snark is so good at times.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could prove anything we wanted just by pulling up a few sentences that when taken alone, appeared to support our conclusions, wrote off some scholars who countered us just by cancelling them out as "Catholic", and the final coup, stuck our fingers in our ears and repeated "Blah blah, blah!", as we ignored the real scholars who had broad and deep knowledge on the topic of discussion?
Sadly, people actually do that! It is called many things, but the most accurate description is "being willfully ignorant".
You know, it is not at all unusual, in the times in which we live, to find better research and deeper understanding, which tends to correct our misconceptions about ancient cultures and religions. When you think about that for a moment, scholars have made great strides in comprehending languages which have been dead for millennia, and in discovering and interpreting artifacts uncovered in archeological digs in a much more informed way. Only in Armstrongism is this not allowed. Back in the 1950s and '60s, Simon Magus may have been a plausible explanation to some regarding the origins of Catholicism, (although Irenaeus was always right there!), and finding cognates amongst ancient and current languages may not have been as laughable as a method of tracing the migrations of the lost tribes of Israel as we know it to be today. I'm sure there are people who detest the very idea that the human genome has been mapped. We live in 2024, a time when a few mouse clicks bring up all manner of factual materials about which nobody but the most elite scholars of 1955, had any inkling existed. This is a huge part of why we say Armstrongism was time and date stamped for the 1950s. No way would it fly today! In fact it isn't except as a nostalgia act.
It's no accident that the ACOG leaders and Bob Thiel expend so much effort to bolster the limited understanding and theories of Herbert W. Armstrong. Their core, their audience demands that. Several years ago, David Hulme had a twinge of intellectual honesty and disavowed a select few of these, and his church and ministers turned tail and left! Bob Thiel may actually be gaining some new members to CCOG because of the vociferousness with which he defends Armstrongite teachings even though better scholars are actually winning the debate. It's like the old John Cougar "Authority Song" video. Cougar steps into the ring, T-shirt sleeves rolled up like a tough guy, and loses the fight. As the crowd breaks up, a young kid looks up at his vanquished hero, smiles and nods his head and defiantly rolls up his sleeves.
BB
If Thiel is using the title ""Dr'' from a certificate he got from Ambassador College where people got doctorates in theology degrees for all things conforming of course to Armstrong theory such as tribes of Europe being the lost ten tribes - and these doctorates not being recognized by any one else you start wondering a bit
Bob never got a "degree" from Ambassador. He only attended some classes there. He also only attended a couple classes at Fuller and yet he tries to pass them both off as the source of his theological education.
His "Dr." is from his homeopath/naturopathic training and from the Indian theology diploma mill in India where he reportedly got his "Dr" from. It was nothing more than a correspondence school that wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. It is unaccredited.
The only "Dr" credibility he has is with peers with some of the more fringe elements of homeopathic/naturopathic "therapies".
He has no theological education from any Church of God movement college or school and his rather piss poor education in theology is from booklets, sermons, and his idolization of Rod Meredith and Dibar Apartian, both of who were spiritually and theologically bankrupt.
Is there anything about Bob that is truthful?
The sabbath was made for man. Now.
concerning Dibar I noticed he had a Master of Arts in Theology awarded in 1963. In Bricket Wood I think. In the same year Apartian wrote a very dumb and ludicrous prophetical commentary concerning the ten kings and Russia such as you can read at the May 13 discussion re the dumbest-thing-dibar-apartian-ever said was ...
What we suffer for is a lack of a coherent and logical response from Armstrongists on the topics that we examine on this blog. These are useful topics but they invoke, usually, nothing more than sound bites from the Armstrongists gallery. Of course, we understand the culture. Armstrongists hold themselves above the likes of questioners. They know, in their minds, the truth and questioners do not and are not worth bothering with. In following this path, Armstrongists form for themselves almost an impenetrable redoubt of unexamined and unverified belief.
For instance, regarding the Jerusalem Council, I know that Armstrongists have their own interpretation of the events of Acts 15. I have never seen this written but have heard it spoken. I have never seen their side of the story emerge in the pages of this blog. Instead, a few Armstrongists, who are likely breaking the rules by looking at this blog at all, show up. They are not fluent in Armstrongist theology and tend to deal in unsupported declarations ad hominem attacks.
For instance, I had an Armstrongist once tell me that the Jerusalem Council assumes that the Law of Moses, as they define the Law of Moses, must be kept. The only question is which parts of the ceremonial law must also be kept. And the outcome is that the Law of Moses plus the few explicit conclusions of the council must be kept. The council did not declare “thou shalt not kill” because that is assumed to be required along with the rest of the Law of Moses. And the idea that the Law of Moses is yet binding and requires no proclamation from the council is supported by Acts 15:21 where James states:
“For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
So, according to this particular Armstrongist, this statement is an explanation why the Council did not detail the entire Law of Moses. It was generally accessible to everyone.
Further, the Council was about the “added” sacrifices and not the Law of Moses proper which contains the Sabbath, holy days, tithing and dietary laws. This argument, of course, is heavily flawed but there is nobody to present it in good form. I probably have not given to it what it deserves. So, the Circumcision Party believes that circumcision and the Law of Moses are required for salvation and Armstrongists believe that the Law of Moses plus a few other ceremonial laws are required for sacrifice. And once again Armstrongists stretch their necks in the hangman’s nose because they have carefully made binding on themselves a requirement for salvation, keeping the Law of Moses, that they do not do.
Scout
Post a Comment