Why I Tithe

Simple: I am a faithful member of the Church and believe and defend its truth claims. I do not larp as a Latter-day Saint while in reality am an agnostic. Further, the Lord Jesus Christ (whose resurrection is a historical event I affirm) commanded such in both ancient and modern revelation.

Of course, there are also benefits; for example, the Church has made contributions in opposition to a citizen-led ballot, as the Church wishes to stop the holocaust that is abortion in Idaho. Such is "based" as the kids would say.

Lee Martin McDonald on the Use of the Wisdom of Solomon by Paul

  

The most obvious example, of course, is whether Paul cited Wisdom of Solomon as sacred scripture in Rom 1:19–32 (compare Wis 12–15). The parallels between Rom 2:4 and Wis 15:1–5 also suggest more than a casual familiarity with that book. The question this raises for Lim has to do with the way that Paul makes use of this text and whether he is citing it as scripture. He is not convinced that Paul thought of Wisdom as scripture, but he does not deny Paul’s awareness of this text. It may be that a reexamination of how the NT uses and cites the OT texts and other texts needs further clarification. Some scholars continue to insist that Paul cited Wisdom as scripture in this text and that may well be the case. Lim cites Dunn as an example. The lack of Paul’s use of citation formulae is not necessarily determinative here, as we see in other NT examples where Jesus, according to Mark 14:62, cites Dan 7:13, but does not use any scriptural formulae such as “as the scripture says.” It is generally conceded that Jesus saw and cited Daniel of sacred scripture. This practice of citing scriptural texts without the scriptural formulae is also found throughout the book of Hebrews in which its author regularly cites many OT texts, more than almost any other NT book, but with one exception (Heb 10:7) without the familiar introduction “as it is written.”

 

That author and others seems to be “writing with scripture,” to use Jacob Neusner’s line, which often reflects the way that the NT writers occasionally made use of scriptural texts, namely without the typical introductory formulae. Paul’s use of the Wisdom of Solomon, like other NT writers’ use of Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, may reflect what was common in the early churches who welcomed these books and subsequently included them in sacred scripture collections. While Sirach was a disputed book for generations in rabbinic Judaism, it was welcomed initially by the rabbis as scripture and it is also included in early Christianity scripture canons. Does this suggest that it was also accepted as scripture in the first century and cited as such in several texts in the NT? The history of the early churches’ reception of both of these books as scripture suggests that Paul too may have had a more positive view toward Wisdom as scripture than what some scholars have seen. (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: T&T Clark, 2017], 1:262)

 

Stacy Trasancos and George Elliott (RCs) on "this is my body" and "this is my blood"

 While defending Transubstantiation (which requires a virtual presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus after the words of consecration), two Catholics noted that:

 

. . . the copula “to be” (GK: εστιν) by itself does not require a literal translation. To understand the meaning of “is” in this context better, we have to turn to the underlying Aramaic and the context of the passage.

 

The underlying Aramaic that Jesus used at the Last Supper is speculative but largely agreed upon by biblical scholars, Catholics and non-Catholic alike. Through an analysis of the Greek text, Jesus likely pronounced the words dēn biśrî (literally, “this is my body”) and dēn ‘idmî (literally, “this, my blood”) over the bread and wine respectively. The Greek is a faithful translation of this Aramaic wording. While this construction in Aramaic can be interpreted as literal, it does not entirely dismiss the possibility of a figurative understanding of the text. (Stacy Trasancos and George Elliott, Behold, it is I: Scripture, Tradition, and Science on the Real Presence [Gastonia, N.C.: TAN Books, 2021], 37-38)

 

Gary Campbell (former SSPX Priest) Calling the SSPX a "Cult"

  

When I left the SSPX in 1999 I did not keep in contact with any members of the movement. Neither did I frequent the legitimate communities granted the pre-reform missal by Rome. I was traumatized, as anyone escaping a cult is, and I wanted to assimilate into Catholic life quietly and without obstacles. (Gary Campbell, I Will Go Unto the Altar of God: A Reply to the Traditionalists on the Mass of Paul VI [St. Louis: Enroute, 2026], 3)

 

Lee Martin McDonald on Josephus Recognizing Holy Spirit Empowered Prophetic Speech During His Time

  

While Josephus argued that the era of prophecy was over with Artaxerxes (ca. 465 BCE, cf. Ag. Apion 1.40–41), he still recognized that the Holy Spirit empowered prophetic speech and that there was a way of knowing when it was false (Ant. 8.408). While recognizing the inspiration of the Jewish prophetic scriptures, he thought that he too was “inspired” (War 3.351–53). He claims this in his ability to prophesy Vespasian’s ascent to become Roman Emperor (War 3.399–408). Although believing that the prophetic voice was largely gone in Israel, Josephus shows awareness that occasionally some still claimed prophetic status, as in the case of Theudas who apparently believed that he was a prophet and led some 400 Jews to the Jordan River, but he and his followers were killed by the Roman soldiers (see Josephus, Ant. 20:97–98a; cf. Acts 5:34–37; See also War 6.286). While Josephus never claims that he is a prophet, he does claim prophetic-like actions for himself (see War 3.400–402), and refers to a divine “voice” that gave clarity and vision to one named Jesus who proclaimed a voice predicting the destruction of Jerusalem (War 6.300–309). (Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Biblical Canon, 2 vols. [London: T&T Clark, 2017], 1:182)

 

Lorenzo Snow's Couplet: "God" as a Reference to Jesus, not the Father?

Don Bradley, in a recent interview with Pastor Jeff of Hello Saints (Do Latter-day Saints Actually Believe in the Trinity? | HONEST Conversation), pointed out that Lorenzo Snow’s couplet seems to have been focused more on Jesus, not the Father. As it has been a while since I read the Journal of Discourses (I read the set back in 2007), I decided to check this out, and Don seems to be correct (emphasis added):

 

As man now is, God once was—even the babe of Bethlehem, advancing to childhood—thence to boyhood, manhood, then to the Godhead. This, then, is the "mark of the prize of man's high calling in Christ Jesus."

 

Source: Lorenzo Snow, "No Prominent Latter-Day Saint Who Lives His Religion Need Expect Justice in the Courts—the Same Sacrifices May Be Required of Modern As of Ancient Apostles—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Established By Divine Revelation—We Will Be Made Perfect By Suffering—Our Character As Latter-Day Saints Must Be Preserved Inviolate—Visit of Jesus to Kirtland Temple—Farewell," January 10, 1886, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: Daniel H. Wells, 1886), 26:368

John Chrysostom Against Icon Veneration in his Homiles on the Psalms

  

Praise the Lord, my soul. Let us sing this together with David: if he is not present in body, at least he is in spirit. For proof that the righteous are present with us, and sing along with us, listen to what Abraham says to the rich man: when he said, “Send Lazarus so that my brothers may learn what happens in Hades and put their affairs in order,” he replied to him, “They have Moses and the prophets.” Actually, Moses and all the prophets were long dead in the body, but in their writings they had them. After all, if a person sets up a lifeless image of son or dear one and thinks that person, though dead, is present, and through the lifeless image he imagines him, much more do we enjoy the communion of the saints through the divine Scriptures, having in them images not of their bodies but of their souls, the words spoken by them being of their very souls. (John Chrysostom, Homily on Psalm 146, in St. John Chrostom: Old Testament Homilies, 3 vols. [trans. Robert Charles Hill; Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodoxy Press, 2007], 3:116)

 

Further Reading:

 

Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons