1 Peter 1:24-25, quoting Isaiah 40:6,8. Motto of the Lutheran Reformation.
Fayth onely justifieth before God. Robert Barnes, DD The Supplication, fourth essay. London: Daye, 1572.
Lord if Thou straightly mark our iniquity, who is able to abide Thy judgement? Wherefore I trust in no work that I ever did, but only in the death of Jesus Christ. I do not doubt, but through Him to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Robert Barnes, DD, before he was burnt alive for "heresy", 30 July 1540.
What is Luther? The doctrine is not mine, nor have I been crucified for anyone. Martin Luther, Dr. theol. (1522)
24 October 2010
What does "Halloween" mean?
Let's start with Halloween. The word is a contraction actually, the "een" being short for "even" which is short for "evening". Evening of what? Evening before the Hallows, that's what. So what or who in the hell are the hallows? "Hallow" is the modern English form of a Germanic root word meaning "holy", which also survives in modern German as "heilige". The Hallows are the holy ones, meaning the saints.
1 November has for centuries been celebrated in the West as the Feast of All Hallows, cognate with the German word for it, Allerheiligen, which is now usually expressed in English as the Feast of All Saints. The term Hallowmas was once common for it, the mass of all hallows. Halloween then is a contraction for the Eve of the Feast of All Hallows, the night on 31 October before the feast on 1 November.
About the only other times you hear "hallow" in some form or other in modern English is its retained use in the traditional wording of the Our Father, "hallowed be thy name" or held holy be thy, the second person familiar form of address modern English doesn't use, name, or the phrase "hallowed halls" in reference to a university or some esteemed institution.
The Origin of All Saints' Day. Lemuralia.
So when did we start having a Feast of All Hallows on 1 November? Well, we started having a Feast of All Hallows, or Saints, before it was 1 November. In the Eastern Church, all the saints are collectively remembered on the first Sunday after Pentecost. It really got rolling when the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire Leo VI (886-911) built a church in honour of his wife when she died, but as she was not a recognised saint he dedicated the church to all the saints, so that she would be included in a commemoration of all saints recognised as such or not.
In the Western Church, the whole thing got rolling when Pope Boniface IV got permission in 609 AD from the Roman emperor Phocas -- this would be the Eastern Roman Emperor, as the Western Roman Empire was long gone by this time -- to redicate the Roman Pantheon to Mary and all martyrs. What's the Pantheon? A big temple built by Agrippa, Caesar Augustus' best general officer, to Jupiter, Venus and Mars in 27 BC. It was destroyed in a major fire in Rome in 80 AD. The emperor Domitian rebuilt it, but it burned again in 110 AD. The emperor Trajan began reconstruction and it was completed by the emperor Hadrian in 126 AD. That's the building that's there now.
Boniface rededicated the Pantheon to Mary and all martys on 13 May 609 (might have been 610) AD. Why 13 May? Because it was on that day that the old Roman Lemuralia concluded. What's a Lemuralia? The Roman poet Ovid says it originated when Romulus, one of the co-founders of Rome from whom the city is named, tried to calm the spirit of his brother Remus, the other co-founder. Why would Remus' spirit need calming? Because Romulus killed him with a shovel to make sure he didn't name and rule the city, that's why.
At any rate, over time it became the day, or rather days, there were three of them, 9, 11, and 13 May, when the head of the household (the paterfamilias, father of the family) chased off the lemures (one lemur, two or more lemures) who were vengeful spirits of the dead ticked off at the living, for either not having been buried properly or treated well in life or remembered well in death, and out to harm or at least scare the crap out of the living.
Because they appeared so scary, they were also called larvae (one larva, two or more larvae) meaning "masks", which is also how the "mask" of early stage life in some animals nothing like the adult stage, such as the caterpillar to the butterfly, came to be called larva. Anyway, paterfamilias went out at midnight looking to one side and tossing black beans behind him saying "haec ego mitto his redimo meque meosque fabis", or "I send these (beans), with these I redeem me and mine" nine times. Then, he banged bronze pots to-gether saying "manes exite paterni" or "Souls of my ancestors, exit" nine times.
Western All Saints' Day Gets Moved By The Pope. Samhain.
In putting the Feast of All Saints on 13 May, Boniface meant to both replace the old Lemuralia and transform it into a Christian observance for all the Christian dead. The replacement anyway worked, and over time the Lemuralia were largely forgotten. So why isn't All Saints' Day still 13 May? Because Pope Gregory III (731-741), btw a Syrian and to date the last pope not a European, built a place in St Peter's -- the old one begun by Constantine, not the one there now, remember that, it'll pop up later -- in Rome for veneration of relics of all saints, and moved the date to 1 November. It stuck, and in 835 Louis the Pious, son and successor to Charlemagne (aka Karl der Grosse), with a big nudge from Pope Gregory IV, made it officially stuck and there it is to this day.
Thing is, there already was another non Christian celebration about this time. The Celts had something called Samhain, which means "Summer's end" and is still the word for November in Irish, as two other of their big celebrations, Bealtaine and Lunasa, are the Irish words for May and August. It was a harvest festival, but also included the realisation that Winter is coming and thus grain and meat for the season for people and livestock alike is prepared, the bones of the slaughtered animals thrown into bone fires, which is now contracted to bonfires, from which the whole community lighted its individual home fires. Also it was thought the world of the living and the dead intersected on this date, and the dead could cause damage to the living, so the living wore costumes to look like the dead or appease them or confuse them and minimise the potential damage. Your original trick or treat.
So a feast that started out to replace or transform one pagan observance involving the dead ends up on another, first Roman then Celtic. So whadda we got? A supposedly Christian celebration that's just a non-Christian one with a Christian veneer over it? Well, to some extent, yes. The mistake would be to see this as the whole story. Judas Priest, we ain't even got to the Reformation yet, howzat figure into all this? How come Luther's out there nailing stuff to the church door on Halloween? Was he trick or treating or something?
As to the general idea, guess what, people die, Christian or non Christian, and the people they leave behind feel the loss and want to remember them. Hardly surprising that Christians would want to do that, hell, everybody does, and that's why there's remembrances of various kinds in cultures all over the world. Given the Christian knowledge of salvation from sin and death by the merit of the death and resurrection of Jesus, a commemoration of those who have passed from this life to the joy of that salvation in God's presence would even more suggest itself, and show the fulfillment of a universal human inkling with all its folklore in the revelation of the Gospel. IOW, if anyone ought to commemorate their dead, it's Christians who know God's revealed truth as to what death, and life both here and beyond, is all about.
But, as we've seen, it's easy to get confused again, get drawn back into the folklore, begin to evolve a sort of hybrid of truth and the guesswork expressed in the folklore, and confuse that for Christianity itself. As an example, remember old Gregory III setting up a place to venerate relics in St Peter's? Why would one venerate something from the body of a dead Christian? Is there even the slightest suggestion of such a practice, or it having any merit, in the Bible? No. Luther mentioned there are many things which even if they began with a good intent originally become so clouded with the sort of thing we manufacture for ourselves in folklore that the intent is long since lost.
What Is An Indulgence?
What is an indulgence anyway? It has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin, and we'll see in a minute doesn't have bupkis to do with Purgatory either. In Roman Catholic thinking, a sin may indeed be forgiven, but, consequences remain for punishment. Some sins are so serious that, if one does them knowing they are serious yet freely deciding to, the rejection of God is so complete that it is mortal to the life of the soul, for which reason they are called mortal sins, and the punishment and consequnce is eternal.
But, even if one repents and is forgiven for a mortal sin, it's still like most sins which aren't so serious, called venial sins, where the punishment is not eternal loss of life but temporal, the sin reflects an attachment to some part of God's creation over God himself, and one must undertake the removal of that attachment to creatures rather than the Creator through works of mercy, charity, penance, prayer and the like; one must undertake the sanctification, the making holy, of himself, and the problem is, while this may be done over time, you may die before you have enough time here. Hence Purgatory, where the process begun here is completed if you die before completing it here and "walk right in" as they used to say.
But good news! Not good news as is the Gospel; if that were understood we wouldn't even be into this nonsense, but guess what, you don't actually have to do all this cleansing and santifying yourself. There's a whole treasury of merit from Jesus and the saints, and just as one's sins affect others, so since we're all members of the body of Christ the church, the merit of Christ and the saints can affect others too, and the church, given the power to bind and loose on Earth and it will be bound or loosed in Heaven, can apply that merit to other members, not to forgive the sin but reduce the temporal consequences needing sanctification, and that application is tied to various pious things you do, like say venerating a relic.
Holy crap that's a lot of thinking! I guess the message that by HIS stripes, meaning the marks of his suffering, we are healed, that he redeemed us like a coupon, paying the price, taking the punishment we are due for us, is just too good to really be true, so we tack on all these human thinkings-through onto it to make it more palatable to our understanding.
St Peter's, Luther, and Tetzel.
Well back to this church that's been standing in Rome for over 1000 years through lots of stuff good and bad and is in pretty bad shape, but given as Constantine started it you kind of don't demolish stuff like that, so whaddya do? Pope Nicholas V (1447-1455) was the first guy to think yeah maybe you do either completely rebuild it or tear it down and build a new one. He had some plans drawn up but died before much was actually done. Finally Pope Julius II (1503-1513), the one just before Leo X to whom Luther addressed "The Freedom of the Christian", laid the cornerstone for the new St Peter's in 1506.
Costs a lot of money, and Julius liked building stuff. The project was begun 18 April 1506 and wouldn't be completed until 18 November 1626 when Pope Urban VIII dedicated the church. Funding was to be provided in part by selling indulgences. Facilitating this was Albrecht, or Albert. von Hohenzollern, who became archbishop of Magdeburg at age 23 in 1513 and bought himself election to the powerful post of archbishop of Mainz in 1514. To pay for it he got a HUGE loan from Jakob Fugger -- don't laugh, he was a serious, serious dude, banker to everyone who mattered, loaned Charles V, he to whom the Augsburg Confession was presented, most of the money to buy being elected Holy Roman Emperor, for example.
Albrecht then got permission from Pope Leo X to sell indulgences to pay the loan off as long as half was sent to Rome to pay for St Peter's. A Fugger agent tended the money, and Albrecht got his top salesman in a damn Domincan (friars are always suspect; if they were up to any good they'd have been proper monks like the Benedictines, everybody knows that) named Johann Tetzel.
When the gold in the coffer rings,
the soul from Purgatory springs.
Sobald das Geld im Kasten klingt,
Die Seele aus dem Fegefeuer springt!
Not even RCC theology, as Cardinal Cajetan later said. Now, it would be overly simplistic to the point of just plain false to ascribe Luther's posting of the 95 Theses to Tetzel and that famous jingle. The sources, the depth, the background of what led to the Reformation go much deeper than that -- which is why I spent all that time on all that ancient stuff. This had been coming for a long, long, time, centuries of it. Tetzel died a broken man, shunned by all sides, and while Luther fought him strenuously, as he lay dying Luther wrote him a personal letter saying the troubles were not of his making, that that child had a different father, as Luther put it.
For us Lutherans to-day to not understand what that different father was would be false to our Lutheran Reformation and to Luther himself. What do we really have here? A misunderstanding (Luther) in reaction to a misunderstanding (Tetzel and indulgences and the late mediaeval papacy) which once the misunderstandings are cleared up, maybe issue a joint declaration on the doctrine of justification or something, the whole thing is resolved and we're one big happy family again? No, and in the words of the great theologian Chris Rock, hell no.
Theologians like to call the problem one of justification versus sanctification. What does this mean? Sanctify, to make sanctus, which is the Latin word for holy, right back where we started. Justify, to make justus, which is the Latin word for just. How can a person be just before God if he is not holy? Well, he can't. It gets worse. Not only can he not be just before God if he is not holy, there is no amount of time and works that will make him holy enough to be just before God. It gets worse yet. That's even when God calls out a people and gives them his Law to show them exactly what he wants, and sends prophet after prophet to get them back on course.
But having shown us that with the Law, it gets better with the Gospel, which is just a contraction of old English words for good news. And the good news is this, that he has himself done for us what we could not do for ourselves, which is, fulfill the Law on our behalf, taking the punishment we deserve on himself and paying our debt, thus literally redeeming us. Turns out those human inklings were on to something but couldn't grasp what. Salvation is by works, but the works of Jesus, not us; our salvation is by faith in the merit of Jesus, that as he took our sin and it was credited to him though sinless, we take on his holiness and it is credited to us though we are unholy.
It's so utterly simple. What then, we are to do no works at all? Not in the least. We are to do good works; we are not to trust in them for our salvation in any part but to trust wholly in his. This too is utterly simple. It's our sinfulness that wants to make it complicated, figure our works have just got to have something to do with it, and mix that in with the good news of salvation through faith in the works of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and come up with a sort-of good news where it's all him, except that it's you in there too with some punishment to work off and holiness to attain.
Thus do indulgences become a corruption of the Gospel and obscure it, whether they are sold or not. Thus does so much else become a corruption of the Gospel and obscure it -- the office of holy ministry becomes a priesthood, celebration of those who have gone before us in faith become another spirit/ancestor thing, the church itself becomes a part of the state, doing good works because we are saved becomes doing good works in order to be saved, on and on.
And worst of all in that the mass, or Divine Service as we often call it, becomes no longer first his gift of his word to us through the transformed synagogue service of prayer, Scripture reading and preaching and then his gift of the same body and blood given for us now given to us as the pledge of our salvation and his testament to us his heirs, but a work to be done and effective not through the power of his word to do what it says by simply by having worked the work.
Reformation Day. Reformationstag.
And so on 31 October 1517 Father Martin Luther posted his document on the door of a church in Wittenberg. The title was Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiaru, If that sounds like Latin it's because it is. It was an invitation to a formal moderated academic event called a Disputation, in which a statement or statements are argued to be true or false by reference to an established written authority, such as, in religion, the Bible.
The church was All Saints Church in Wittenberg -- hey, the all saints thing again! -- which was and is commonly called the Schlosskirche, or castle church, as distinct from the Stadtkirche, or town church, of St Mary. It was built by Frederick III, called The Wise, who was the Elector of Saxony, one of the seven who elected Holy Roman Emperors. He also founded the University of Wittenberg in 1502, in which Luther was a professor of theology, and attached the castle church to it as the university's chapel.
Luther was awarded the Doctor of Theology degree by the university on 19 October 1512 and two days later became a member of the theological faculty there with the position Doctor In Bible. The "95 Theses" as they are commonly called were written therefore in the academic language, Latin, rather than the language of the land, German, because it was an academic document calling for the academic event called a disputatio, or Disputation.
So he wasn't out trick or treating, All Saints Church had a huge collection of relics of the saints, thousands of them, collected by Frederick, and veneration of them was one way to earn an indulgence, for which purpose they were put on display once a year. You get 100 days indulgence per relic. By 1520 Frederick had over 19,000 of them, and taking that as a round number, (19K x 100)/365 is 5,205 years and some change. Now, the "days" are not, as is often thought, time off from Purgatory; it is time off from what would otherwise have to be punishment here on Earth, therefore shortening one's stay in Purgatory, where there are no earthly days, to complete what was not completed here in earth.
Holy crap that's a lot of thinking! Oh yeah, we've been there before. Now we see how out of hand it was, and also see that the out of hand thing isn't the worst part, you can curb the out of hand stuff, and it is now largely curbed even in the RCC, but the worst part remains, the near total eclipse made of the good news of salvation in the Gospel, getting justification and sanctification all mixed up.
So, the power and efficacy of indulgences was the surface of a much deeper problem, the obscuring of the Gospel and the perversion of the church's mission to spread it and minister its sacraments, those gifts of grace, grace coming from the Latin for "free", gratis, from Christ himself, in Baptism and the Eucharist.
A Quick Look East.
BTW, the Eastern Church isn't off the hook here; while this indulgence thing was a Western thing and there is no equivalent to the remission of temporal punishment for sin in the Eastern Church, there was the practice of absolution certificates, which in some places did lift punishments but primarily were issued by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem to pilgrims there and were distributed abroad, which absolved the sins of whoever bought them -- as distinct from an indulgence which does not absolve sin but remits punishment due to forgiven sins, which if they're forgiven then why is there still punishment, holy crap brace yourself for a lot of thinking -- and the proceeds paid for the heavy costs, including taxes, of maintaining the shrines in the Holy Land. Even worse than indulgences, or at least just as bad, technical differences regardless.
You know what? The Disputation the 95 Theses called for was never held. Something much better happened. It's called the Lutheran Reformation, in which no new church was started, but the one church, the church that has been there all along, the church that will be there all along, the only church there will ever be, was reformed where the Gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered after the institution of Christ rather than that plus a hell of a lot of thinking that added all sorts of emendations by Man.
This reformation was at the risk of life in the beginning from the powers that be. Thankfully those times are over, but as with the indulgences themselves, it is not that itself which is the main thing, but the Gospel for which it was done. We celebrate this great working of the Holy Spirit, in reforming the church against both pressures to maintain the old errors and pressures to take the Reformation into further errors, on 31 October, Reformation Day.
Reformation Day, whether it's Sunday or not, until recently. As if something for which our Lutheran fathers risked literally everything needs to be moved for the convenience of us who benefit from it to the nearest Sunday to make it easier and therefore get more numbers. Any of us need police protection to safely move about as Lutherans that moving it to Sunday will change?
Thanks be to God for the reformation of his church!
And Happy Halloween while you're at it. Happy All Saints Day (Allerheiligen) too!
10 October 2010
But hell, it's the season, and so with the college football polls coming out weekly, here's the 2011 results from the US News & World Report rankings for colleges and universities, both national and international. Some surprising changes just like the football ones!
Top Ten 2011, US And World.
For the US for 2011, the Top Ten Schools are:
(Hold on a sec, this is gonna look like football stuff after all, where the Big Ten has 11 teams and next year will have 12, because there's 11 schools in the Top Ten, but that's because if there's a tie, which there was for #5, #7 and a three-way for #9, each school takes a place, they don't count as one place with a tie for it, so for example there is no #6 but there are two #5s)
1-Harvard, 2-Princeton, 3-Yale, 4-Columbia, 5-Stanford, 5-U Penn, 7-Cal Tech, 7-MIT, 9-Dartmouth, 9-Duke, 9-U Chicago.
Now, USNWR also publishes world rankings, a Top 400 list. Here's the 2011 Top Ten from that:
1-Cambridge, 2-Harvard, 3-Yale, 4-University College London, 5-MIT, 6-Oxford, 7-Imperial College London, 8-U Chicago, 9-Cal Tech, 10-Princeton.
Notice something? Wrt US schools, if you take the US schools in order from the world rankings, it ain't the same order as the US rankings! Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Look at the US rankings. Princeton is #2, but taking the US schools in their order from the world rankings, it falls behind several US schools it outranks in the US rankings. So, just for fun, if we take the world rankings, then just take the US schools from it in order, here's THAT Top Ten for the US:
1-Harvard, 2-Yale, 3-MIT, 4-U Chicago, 5-Cal Tech, 6-Princeton, 7-Columbia, 8-U Penn, 9-Stanford, 10- Duke.
I mean Judas H Priest at commencement, look at MIT. How do you rank in a two way tie for #7 nationally but rank #5 internationally, with the school you tied with nationally for #7 (Cal Tech) at #9 internationally, and the school that outranked you at #2 nationally (Princeton) trails you at #10 internationally, and three schools that outranked you nationally don't even place in the top ten internationally (Columbia, Stanford, U Penn) but you did?
As the great American hero Jesse James used to say, now ain't that the dingest dangest thing?
The solution? Go to Harvard, man, then you're just Number One end of story no matter how you slice it. Plus you are mystically, cosmically and metaphysically connected to the current #1 worldwide, Cambridge, Harvard being in Cambridge, Mass! Which is where MIT is too, right across the Charles River from Boston, Mass, which is just outside Requiem, Mass.
OK I'm jacking around now but I'm a damn Doctor philosophiae so I get to do that about unibloodyversities.
Some Notes On The 2011 Ranking.
Speaking of which, when I first did this school ranking thing in 2009, it sparked a whole deal with me, which I ain't going to recap here because it has since become a post all of its own, published annually in the Past Elder Blogoral Calendar on 25 February, founding day of the University of Iowa, my alma mater, as "Readin, Writin, and Absolute Multitude", an extended essay on education and the history and development thereof -- which will also explain why I said Absolute Multitude rather than Rithmetic -- so watch for that.
But here a couple of quick notes re the 2011 rankings. The oldest university, in the modern sense of an institution rather than a single teacher granting a degree, in the world, and which gave us the word "university", is the University of Bologna (as in Italy, not full of) founded in 1088, and the old gal is STILL kicking ass, coming in at #176 internationally for 2011.
You know what? All of the rest of the original universities in the modern sense still in continuous operation are doing damn well for themselves too! Rock on!
The University of Paris, probably the second founded modern university, around 1160, was disbanded by the French Revolution (nice going, guys) in 1789. There is a University of Paris now, but it is connected to the real University of Paris only in that it occupies some of its former buildings. The current one only dates from 1970: Napoleon' established an academy in 1808 to replace the old University of Paris, which became a university in 1890, and was shut down by student riots in 1968 then the French government reorganised and reopened it in 1970 as 13 different schools which last I knew are being reorganised again. Some of those schools are ranked, but this is not the same as the University of Paris; even the word "Sorbonne" just comes from some of the buildings.
The University of Oxford is third oldest, dating from no later than 1096, and she's STILL among the top in the world, currently #6. Attendance really took off in 1167, when King Henry II forbade English students from going to the University of Paris.
The University of Montpellier is fourth, dating from 1131, formally founded by a papal bull in 1289 (Quia sapentia by Nicholas IV) but was shut down by the French Revolution in 1793 (nice going again guys). Some of its faculties reopened starting in 1810, and the current one also dates from 1970 when it was opened as three separate universities. Montpellier 2 is #286 worldwide for 2011.
The University of Salamanca, in Leon, now part of Spain, is fifth, began operations in 1134 but was chartered by the king in 1218, and fizzled but was opened again by the next king in 1243. It still operates to-day, and is still a fine school, if not what it was centuries ago.
The Commune of Modena is sixth, founded in 1175 by a professor at Bologna who got pissed and founded his own school (OK his name was Pillio of Medicina). It fizzled out by 1338, succeeded by 3 non degree granting institutions which made it to about 1590, then about 1680 the current University of Modena and Reggio Emilia was founded.
Last is Cambridge, founded 1209 by Oxford scholars who were outraged that city officials in Oxford had executed two scholars for raping and murdering locals. Talk about "town and gown" tension, Judas H. They got pissed, left, and formed their own school, and King Henry III gave it the right of ius non trahi extra, only the university disciplines its members. That's some kind of academic freedom! Whatever that, Cambridge is #1 in the world for 2011, and Cambridge people have won more Nobel Prizes than any other school in the world, 88 as of 4 October 2010 when Robert G Edwards won the prize for physiology and medicine.
A Little More About Cambridge #1 and Harvard #2.
Cambridge is also the alma mater of one of my three Lutheran heroes, Robert Barnes, D. Div. 1523, part of a circle at the White Horse Inn known as "the Germans" from their discussion of the works coming from Germany of Martin Luther, and who was a guest of Dr Luther at his home while on the lam from England as the crown chose a different path in Anglicanism.
Not only that, but about 100 years later, in Cambridge, as well as its area -- which is East Anglia, which is where my ancestors are from so you know it's all good -- discontent with Anglicanism and the state's Church of England continued, leading to the Puritan movement of reform, which in turn led to thousands leaving East Anglia for the "new world", in particular Massachusetts Bay Colony and what would become "New England".
That is why, for example, the county Boston is in is named Suffolk, the South Folk of East Anglia, and Cambridge MA was named for Cambridge. The Colony founded "New College" in 1636, and in 1639 it was renamed Harvard College after John Harvard, a Cambridge grad and local Puritan pastor, died the year before with no children and left half his estate and his library of about 400 books to the school.
So while I may have been jacking around about the mystical, cosmic and metaphysical connexion to Cambridge (and a Requiem Mass of course is a funeral mass) it's jacking around about stuff that is real, as is pretty much all jacking around here at Past Elder.
Harvard, not to mention the whole damn area, soon lost its Puritan background though, with the first non-clergy president in 1708, a Unitarian takeover in 1805, and the presidency of Charles W Eliot (1869-1909). While usually seen as the key figure in the so-called secularisation of American education, his ideas were not actually secular but rooted in the Unitarianism of William Ellery Channing, whose Federal Street Church relocated as the Arlington Street Church in 1861 and remains both at the front of and typical of liberalism both theological and political, for example being the site of the first legalised same-sex marriage in the US on 17 May 2004.
But I digress.
Anyway, all of the original modern universities still exist to-day in some fashion, some indirectly with successor institutions, and the three that directly still exist (Bologna, Oxford, Cambridge) STILL make the top 400 internationally, two of them in the Top Ten, Oxford #5 and Cambridge #1, and another Top Tener, Harvard #2, directly related to Cambridge which in turn came from Oxford!
And guess what, arguably the oldest school in the world in continuous existence is Nanjing University in China, which for about a century now is organised as a modern university but was originally founded in 258, and guess further what, STILL makes the top cut for the 2011 list coming in at #177! Pretty damn impressive I'd say.
And I gotta tell ya, my alma mater, University of Iowa, is in there too, #188 on the 2011 list, not too shabby for a relative newcomer only organised 25 February 1847 in what had just become a state only the year before! Also pretty damn impressive I'd say.
08 October 2010
This one gives the Scriptural source of each thing in which we say we believe in the Creed. The word itself comes from the Latin "credo", meaning I (not we) believe, and the word's use as the name of the text follows the ancient practice of naming a text from its first word or two.
The post says this was composed by Richard Gilbert of Hacienda Heights CA, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and for whom prayers are requested, and was forwarded to Pastor McCain by Michael Mapus. Pastor's full blog post is here. Below is the study itself.
The Nicene Creed According to the Scriptures
and of all things
And in one Lord
Acts 10:36, 11:17, Rom. 1:7, 5:1, 1 Cor 1:2, 6:11, 2 Cor. 1:2, 8:9
Gal. 1:3, 6:14, Eph. 1:2, 3:11, Phil. 1:2, 3:20, Col. 1:3, 2:6, 1 Thes. 1:1, 5:9,
2 Thes. 1:1, 2:14, 1 Tim. 6:3, 14, 2 Tim. 1:2, Philemon 1:3, 25, Heb. 13:20,
Jas. 1:1, 2:1, 1 Pet. 1:3, 3:15, 2 Pet. 1:8, 14, Jude 17, 21, Rev. 22:20-21
and was incarnate
by the Holy Spirit
of the Virgin Mary
and was made man;
2 Cor. 3:17
1 Cor. 1:2