https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31684 Sun, 05 Apr 2026 11:55:30 GMT 2026-04-05T11:55:30Z https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31790 Title: A meteorological appraisal of acts 27, 5-26 Abstract: Paul was an experienced traveler. He was taking his last, recorded journey after accumulating more frequent sailing points than anyone else in The Way. He had been transferred to an Egyptian grain ship in Lycia for the continuation of his trip to Rome, in order to stand trial before Caesar. Within these verses is a story ground in faith and hope, challenged by human desire and unpredictable weather and held together by prophecy and an indestructible belief in God. My interest in this narrative arose from what was planned to be a fortnight in Crete. The more my wife and I looked at holiday brochures, the more we were determined to escape the disco scenes and get as close to Cretan village life as possible. This brought us to the southernmost point on the Island and the village of Matala. When I realized that we would be staying near to where Paul's ship was to have anchored during his unsuccessful attempt to convince the sailors to Winter-over, I began reading various commentaries. It soon became apparent that there were considerable variations given the weather-related events in the narrative, e.g., the word "Northeaster" in verse 14 was listed in various commentaries as "Euraquilo, Meltemi, Livas and Eums" Each means something different meteorologically, as noted in the following section. What follows is not intended to alter the import of the journey or the spiritual power of the Apostle's words. Rather, it is intended to serve as a technical commentary which other than having the potential for a tedious read, might help the reader better understand how the weather-related events of this ancient narrative could have come about. Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 GMT https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31790 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31789 Title: The probative force of Peter's speech : acts 15, 7b-11 Abstract: Acts 15, 1-35 is a story of the resolution of a difficulty.] The basis of the difficulty, a teaching, Luke puts forward immediately (15,1): without circumcision according to the Law of Moses "you cannot be saved"; in a second formula (15,5), it is said that "it is necessary" to circumcise them (Gentiles converted to Christianity) and to insist they keep the [entire] Law of Moses. That many Gentile Christians were not instructed to acceptS this teaching created 'a difficulty' . The resolution of the difficulty is not formally stated, not in so many words; nowhere does it say, in a defined manner, both that the only thing necessary for salvation is faith in Jesus and that circumcision and obedience to the entire Mosaic Law are not required for salvation. Yet, that affIrmation is correctly agreed by all interpreters as the Chapter's resolution of the difficulty mentioned. Added to this important teaching in this Chapter 15 is a further decision, that the Gentile Christians of Antioch should abstain from four practices which are abhorrent to Jewish Christians, practices which the Mosaic Law had long ago agreed that Gentiles should forego when living with Jews. As noted, there is no formally crafted church decision directed to the teaching that circumcision and obedience to the entire Jewish Law are not necessary for salvation, no formal statement that "without them you can be saved." Yet, if there is no doubt about the mind of the church in this regard, there must be some place in Acts 15 where the church's eventual teaching on this matter can be most clearly identifIed. This is to be found in the speech of Peter, and it is this speech which we wish to analyze now for its singular expression of what will be the definitive mind of the church of Jerusalem. Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 GMT https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31789 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31788 Title: The individualised pedagogy of Christ Abstract: Contemporary studies in different areas of knowledge put the respect of the individual and the Self at the centre of their very methodological approach. The Self has become a privileged communication tool with today's humanity. Since the Self has become the object of all discourse as well as the communication tool, we acknowledge that the Self is also one of the signs of our times, a challenge which has to be taken up. The rich Judeo-Christian tradition has the necessary tools and content to dialogue with today's culture. Nonetheless, theology needs to learn to communicate using the contemporary privileged tool of communication: the modern and postmodern framework of the Self. Any theological debate centres on the relationship that exists between God and Man. Similar to the progressive attention given to the human being in the social sciences, we have seen the development of the anthropological, transcendental, existential and empirical methods in theological circles. These developments have shifted the starting point of theological discourse from God to Man and his reality. This shift should stand as an eye-opener and a clear sign of the times. We are called to be faithful to Man in order to be truly faithful to God. God communicates with Man in time and space; revelation occurs in a particular context at a given period in time. Thus, a possible way of being faithful to God and to Man is to read the believing community's past and present experience of God. The experience of the believing community has already shown that God respects human beings and reveals Himself according to a progressive pedagogy which respects the understanding and needs of the human community. This understanding of divine pedagogy has already led us to employ the Anthropological method in our Catechesis and Religious Education. However, we are now called to move a step further by trying to understand whether in the experience of the believing community one can infer God's respect for the individual and the individualised pedagogy that God chooses to practice. A privileged point of departure for our discussion is the understanding of the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth, who through the eyes offaith is understood as the Christ and as the Immanuel, God-is-with-us. The New Testament, which is written after a community of believers has gone through an intense transcendental experience. They have come to recognise that something "which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have watched and touched with our own hands, [is] the Word of life" The understanding of Jesus' pedagogical ministry will serve as a basis for inquiring (a) whether God chooses to practice an individualised pedagogy and if this is the case, (b) what are implications for Catechesis and Religious Education. Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 GMT https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31788 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31787 Title: God and the trinity in the fathers – II Abstract: ARIUS put forward a one-sided solution to the half measures of the subordinationism of pre-Nicene theology. His starting point was the Christian kerygma and his continual concern was to clarify the tensions evident in the subordinationism of the pre-Nicene theology. Elevated to the priesthood he was commissioned to expound the Scriptures probably at Baukalis in Alexandria; his character was that of a person capable of making vigorous supporters and vigorous enemies. In a letter to the emperor Constantine, Arius says he derives his belief in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Gospels. This is quite true, in fact the whole of the controversy centered round a number of Scripture passages differently interpreted. These interpretations depended more or less on one's particular understanding of monotheism. Influenced by Middle Platonism, preNicene writers developed a subordinationist theology, which was considered orthodox till Arius appeared. What produced the change from a tolerable, unclarified subordinationism to intolerable Arianism? We have Arius' doctrine explained in a letter he wrote to Alexander of Alexandria in 320. Mon, 01 Jan 2001 00:00:00 GMT https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/31787 2001-01-01T00:00:00Z