Friday, 05 June 2009

• Question 151 - Transitional fossils

  Question 151 - Transitional fossils

   

  No, it is not true. I have copied my colleauge Robert Sungenis on this to

  see if he has more information for you.

   

  John Salza

   

   

  stephen mcelligott writes:

   

  Dear John, I have recently been in a debate and some guy gave me a website leading to transitional fossils and claims it proof for evolution.

   

  yet I know that on your site you say that there is no transitional fossils. is it true now that they have found some?

   

  God bless

   

  Stephen

   

  Stephen,

   

  Yes, transitional fossils are proof for evolution, but that sad fact for evolutionist is that they haven't been able to find any indisputable transitional fossils. The two leading evolutionists, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge, admitted it in a 1971 speech in Chicago to all the world's evolutionists. Subsequently, they invented the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium to replace the absence of transitional fossils. PE is a theory that various species punctuated the landscape instantaneously, without gradual development. Prior to this, Niles Eldredge writes in his books that he used to go out on fossil excavations on a routine basis, but was always frustrated by the fact that he never found any. Many more scientists have admitted that there are no transitional fossils. Some have claimed to have found some, but these are always dubious. You can depend upon the fact that if some scientist found a bona fide transitional fossil, it would make world headlines and be the most stupendous find since the dawn of mankind. But obviously, that has not happened. Everytime the evolutionists have put forward a specimen that they hoped would be a transitional fossil or missing link, it has been discovered that it either belonged to an already known species, or that the specimen was faked, as is the case with Piltdown Man and many others.

   

  There is much more evidence against so-called transitional fossils than what I am giving you here. If you need any more, please let me know.

   

  Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.

  • 1:57 AM
  • 313 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment
  • email

• Question 150 - Does the Bible Allow Polygamy

  Question 150 - Does the Bible Allow Polygamy

   

  I have recently discovered one of my friends is a polygamist. After much discussion, he has challenged me to tell him exactly why it would be in his best interest to remain in a monogamous marriage. I have searched many sources, both Catholic and Protestant, and have found nothing really supporting a monogamous relationship between one man and one woman. Could you offer some insight and perhaps some biblical references that I could share with him? Thank you in advance.

   

  Sincerely,

  Adam Griffith

   

  R. Sungenis: Adam, let’s deal with the Old Testament first. The OT did not condemn polygamy. The first mention of polygamy is in Ex 21:10, where rules are given for a man with more than one wife. Dt 21:15 also implies that a man could legally have more than one wife. Dt 17:17 seems to frown upon polygamy, but the context is not condemning it outright. It is merely saying that a king, in order that he not turn his heart away from God, should not have an abundance of a lot of things, such as horses, wives or gold and silver. Hence, the Pentateuch does not condemn polygamy as morally wrong. It merely dissuades a man from having multiple wives because it may lead him away from God. Hence, when David took multiple wives (2Sam 5:13), it is not condemned. Conversely, when Solomon took many wives (about a 1000 more than David), the prediction of Dt 17:17 came true, since 1 Kings 11 tells us that it was Solomon’s many foreign wives that turned his heart away from God.

   

  Now, without condemning polygamy, the Old Testament certainly implies that a one wife relationship is God’s original design. This was implied in Genesis 1:28 and 2:23. But again, someone could argue that this did not prohibit polygamy. It merely said that each time a man marries a woman, he becomes one flesh with her. For that matter, a man can become “one flesh” with a prostitute, as Paul teaches in 1 Cor 6:16.

   

  But now we come to the New Testament. As such, the rules change. The first thing Jesus did was change the divorce law of the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-9; Mark 10:1-10 and Luke 16:18, Jesus said that in the OT Moses permitted the people to divorce. Hence, a man could divorce his wife and marry another woman without committing the sin of adultery. The only thing that was prohibited to him was that he could not take back his former wife if the second wife died or he divorced the second wife (Dt 24:1-4). But because that law was only given for their hardness of heart, Jesus rescinded it and said that from now on, if a man divorces his wife and marries another woman, he commits adultery. The reason he commits adultery is because he is still married to the first woman in the eyes of God, even though he may have a civil divorce granted by the government. Hence, the only conclusion we can draw is, a man cannot have more than one wife. Otherwise, Jesus could not condemn the man for marrying a second wife. The fact that he divorced his first wife makes no difference in this scenario, since the civil divorce does not free him from the first wife.

   

  As it stands, Jesus did away with divorce, remarriage and polygamy that were all allowed in the Old Testament.

   

  Another confirmation of Jesus’ teaching is that of St. Paul’s. In both Romans 7:1-4 and 1 Cor 11:11-12, Paul reiterates Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce. This teaching is again echoed in 1 Timothy 3:1-2  when Paul deals with the qualifications of a bishop, since it says he must be the husband of ONE wife, which would discount a polygamist.

  • 1:53 AM
  • 277 Views
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email

• Question 149 - Invalid or Illicit Ordinations?

  Question 149 - Invalid or Illicit Ordinations?

   

  Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo consecrated four men as bishops without papal mandate. The Vatican declared, "the Church does not recognize and does not intend in the future to recognize these ordinations or any ordinations derived from them, and she holds that the canonical state of the four alleged bishops is the same as it was prior to the ordination." Since Milingo was consecrated by Paul VI he is a valid bishop. One of the four he consecrated, Fr. George Stallings, was ordained a priest by Cardinal Hickey for the Archdiocese of Washington DC in 1976--a valid priest. Milingo used the CATHOLIC rite of consecration. How could the Vatican NOT recognize this as VALID.  A Bishop using correct matter and form with intention of making a bishop on a valid priest is everything required for validity. IRREGULAR? Sure. ILLICIT? Yes. But INVALID? Not recognizing them or any ordinations that derive from them? This was not the case with Archbishop Lefebvre's

  consecrations. I know of nothing in Dogmatic/sacramental theology that would prevent this consecration from being VALID--yet illicit, irregular, etc--like Lefebvre. Can you shed light on this using dogmatic/sacramental theology?

   

  John

   

  R. Sungenis: John, unless the Vatican uses the words "valid," "invalid," "licit" or "illicit" in its declaration it is really not clear what it is saying. The word "recognize" is ambiguous, as is "canonical state," and the ambiguity may be deliberate. Moreover, you would have to know the level of authority of who said this statement from the Vatican. The Vatican is a big place and has a lot of voices. Some people at the Vatican say things that have no authority behind them (e.g., the prelate who spoke, or failed to speak, about abortion a few weeks ago). Hence, there is just too many unanswered questions here to make even an intelligent guess. This is not a matter I or any other laymen can answer.

  • 1:48 AM
  • 192 Views
  • 2 eProps
  • 1 Comment
  • email

• Question 148 - Why wasn't Enoch added to the Bible?

  Question 148 - Why wasn't Enoch added to the Bible?

   

  MY QUESTION IS, WHY ARE THE BOOKS OF ENOCH LEFT OUT OF  THE BIBLE  AND IT DEALS WITH THE WATCHERS, WHICH TAUGHT MANKIND MANY THINGS, AND WHO WERE THE WATCHERS AND WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM AND ANGELS AND I WONDER IF THE WATCHERS ARE RELATED TO THE ANNUNAKI FROM THE EGYPTIANS, FOR THE "ANNUNAKI" MEANS THOSE WHO CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH, AND  IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH UFOS, FOR THEY WERE REPORTED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN HISTORY AND THERE WEIRD THINGS ON THE WALLS ON EGYPT SUCH AS THIS.

   

  http://www.catchpenny.org/alien.html

   

  IS IT IS LEFT OUT BECAUSE IT IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR OUR SALVATION OR GOD DOES NOT INDEED FOR US TO KNOW ABOUT.

   

  THANKS FOR YOUR HELP

   

  CRAIG

   

  R. Sungenis: Craig, Enoch was left out simply because the Church was not prompted by the Holy Spirit to include it in the canon. Granted, that is an a posteriori argument, but it cannot be denied. Practically speaking, there were over 200 separate books that were potential candidates for the New Testament; and there were the Deuterocanonical and Pseudipigraph books of the Old Testament that had to be judged. Since Enoch was never included in either the Palestinian or Alexandrian canon, the Church had little reason to regard it as inspired. Some of these books had much factual information in them, but the criterion for canonicity is not facts, not even facts about salvation, but divine inspiration. If a book was not inspired by the Holy Spirit, it wouldn't matter how factual its information was, it would not be made part of the canon. As Catholics, we must ultimately believe that the Holy Spirit made the decision on the canon. It cannot be left to the decision of man (even though we also say that the Holy Spirit used the decisions of man to help Him arrive at the final canon). If not, then the canon is subject to fallibility.

  • 1:43 AM
  • 267 Views
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email

• Question 147 - The Difference between Petros and Petra

  Question 147 - The Difference between Petros and Petra

   

  My name is Ismael Hernandez.

   

  Here is my question:

   

  I am discussing with an Orthodox priest who insists that in Greek there is a distinction between petra and petros. Petra he says means immovable rock but there is no evidence in any ancient document of petros used that way. Petros can be a large rock but not an immovable rock. Thus, they are not cognates. Do you have any documentary evidence on this besides the verses you mention in Jesus, Peter & the Keys on the use of petra/lithos about the man stumbling on a path?

  Besides he states there is no good reason to think that in Aramaic Jesus used Kepha in both places as in the kind of Aramaic Jesus spoke the word could have been Shu’a.

  Israel,

   

  R. Sungenis: Israel, I checked again with Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon. For Petra it has rock, crag, but nothing about an immobile rock. Bauer's lexicon says the same, except for the second definition it says "stone," and uses Moulton-Milligan for support. For Petros, L&S have "a piece of rock, a stone" and Bauer has "stone." So, depending on the context, there may sometimes be a distinction between the two words. But whether there is a distinction or not, the fact remains that, grammatically speaking, Peter could not be called a Petra because Petra was a feminine name. He was called the next best thing in the masculine form, Petros. Those who try to take advantage of this grammatical fact and force a distinction in definition on the two words are going way beyond what Greek etymology will allow. Greek allows a mixing and matching of these two words, and does not always hold them distinct in every case.

   

  As for whether Jesus spoke in Aramaic, there simply is no positive proof that he did, at least not in Matthew 16. So it is useless to base arguments on the premise that Jesus used Kepha or Shua.

  • 1:41 AM
  • 196 Views
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email