Genral Christian comments, Gnostics, the Bible, the battle for Orthodoxy
This is a genral discussion of the Bible, Christianity, the Gnostics, Orthodoxy, the Reformation, or anything else regarding Jesus and Christianity. Welcome
This is a genral discussion of the Bible, Christianity, the Gnostics, Orthodoxy, the Reformation, or anything else regarding Jesus and Christianity. Welcome
sleep aids lunesta or ambien phentermine free consult overnight valium affiliate cialis advertising modify phentermine tramadol er and itching tramadol and clinical study addiction adipexdrug online order phentermine edinburgh uk viagra news pages comment
July 7th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
In the beginnings of the Roman Catholic Church there was a battle for Orthodoxy going on. This culminated with the Roman Catholic Church burning hundreds of early Christian texts, and declaring dozens of Christian groups as Heretics. One of the big debates was over the question of what God Jesus was preaching about. Was it the Hebrew God of the Old Testament, or was it another God of Love.
One of the early Christians named Marcion held that the God spoken of by Jesus was inconsistent with the God of vengeance and blood sacrifice. He was declared a heretic along with large numbers of similar thinking folks. It was this battle where in the current day Bible was established.
Today we have recovered many of these lost texts, and a partial view of the belief systems of many of these early Christians. When I view the Bible, I also consider the words of Jesus, “Seek and Ye shall find.” In this quest I found the study of the New Testament Apocrypha, the surviving Gnostic Christian Texts, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the history of Roman Catholic Church. This Church history includes, the burning at the stake of millions of these so called Heretics. Estimates of these murders go from 50 million to 200 millions of the Human Family. No doubt which God won here!!!!
Jesus in the Gospel of John had this to say: “They shall put you out of your synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he does God service. And these things they will do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” John 16:2-3
In John, 8:44 Jesus while speaking to the Jews states, “Ye are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father Ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, ……..”
Is it Christ or is it AntiChrist?????
Cheers
Terry Winger
www.freeanointing.org
August 18th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Thank you terry for all the footwork you have done here. To reject the true anointing is anti-christ. Even the appointed seat of anointment is anti-christ. They loveth and maketh a lie. The ministry is going well and many are opening thier minds to the possibilities of miraculous wonders to come. Please visit me at http://www.myspace.com/anointingoil
Rev. J. Purcell
CA,USA
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:13 am
Hi Rev. Purcell,
Thanks for the post. I have been very busy the past week due to the crash of my computer and the signing of a distribution deal. I am now back up with little loss of data. Still I am very busy with stuff I need to supply for the American Film Market in November.
I briefly checked out your site, cool stuff. I am happy your ministry is growing and doing well. It is great that others are fighting the battle to return Gods Holy Oil. It took me over 30 years of study to fully understand it. Truely the return of the Seal of God must now take place, (Rev 7). I will check out your website again when I have more time. May God Bless.
Cheers
Terry
November 5th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Does anyone know the name of the artwork that is displayed under the ‘free God’s holy anointing oil’ link? It appears to be from a Renaissance timeframe of Christ being anointed by John the Baptist. I would like to know the name of the painting and/or artist. Thank you!
November 8th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Hi Renee,
The title and Author is now under the picture.
Cheers
Terry Winger
April 21st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
*applauds*
August 15th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
THE ANOINTING I THOUGHT CAME FROM THE OLIVE TREE BUT THE ANOINTING OIL USED IN EXODUS COULD HAVE BEEN CANNABIS SEEING HOW MOSES LED PEOPLE AROUND THE DESERT FOR FORTY YEARS AND THE LORD SHOW MANY SIGNS AND WONDER AND THEY REBEL{NOTE THE TEN COMMANDMENT THAT CHRIST DISSOVLE AND REPLACED WITH HIS COMMANDMENT} THEY REBEL AGAINST MOSES , WERE THEY REBELLING AGIANST THE FATHER OF CHRIST OR WERE THEY FOLLOWER OF THE FATHER WITH THE TRUE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IN THEM. BUT MOST OF ALL WHAT CHRIST BROUGHT TO MEN AND WOMEN BY THE WORD WHICH GIVE US “FAITH” IS THIS NOT THE ANOINTING OIL OR IS FAITH THE ANOINTING OIL OF CHRIST ? WITHOUT IT YOU ARE DEAD BOTH PSYHSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY OR IN THE BODY OR OUT OF THE BODY AND YOUR ROOTS BELONG TO THE EVIL ONES WHICH WILL AND ARE DESTOYED , DISSOLVE BACK TO NOTHINGNESS, I PRAY NO LITTLE ONES ARE OF SUCH AND THAT THEY BECOME THE LITTLE LIGHTS STARS OF THE FATHER LIGHT. THE CANNABIS THAT IS USED TODAY IS INHALE INTO THE AND BY THE BREATH WHICH GIVE US LIFE ARE THEN THEY WHOM USE THIS THEN NOT USING THE ANOINTING OIL TO CHANGE OR FEED THE SPIRIT ? REMENBER THAT YOU ARE BOUND BY THE WORD WHICH IS “FAITH” IS THAT NOT ENOUGH ? SO SINCE SCIENCE CAN PROVE THE USE OF CANNABIS IN EARLY ANOINTING OIL THEN WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWER OF THE LORD TO USE MATERIAL SUBTANCES OR “FAITH” ?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Well Greetings I am one who is,
It is very clear from the baptism writings of the early Christians writers on baptism that the anointing with the Holy Oil is how we became called Christians.
The Oil was placed on the incense and inhaled inside the Church. There is very little records on incense use by Jesus except as is described in the Bruce Codex. Yet the early Christians clearly believed it would send the prayers of the Church directly before the Mercy seat of God. Also Revelations clearly talks about the return of the seal of God and the incense. False anointed is a common theme in the Bible.
Regarding your question is faith not enough, well clearly baptism was a key item to salvation but there is always resurrection unto Judgement day, because Jesus stated “He that believes in me though he were dead yet shall he live.” Honestly that issue could be widely debated, but based no my research into the early Christian Baptism, the anointing was a necessity.
Let me leave you with some excerpts from the Gospel of Phillip:
The Chrism or (anointing) is superior to baptism, for it is from the word chrism that we are called Christians. The Lord did every thing in a mystery, a baptism, and a chrism, and a Eucharist, and a redemption and a bridal chamber. There is water in water, but there is Fire in the Chrism. The Fire is the Chrism.
For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the Apostles, and the Apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed possesses everything. He possesses the Resurrection, the Light, the Cross, and the Holy Spirit. Gnostic Gospel of Philip
Cheers
November 4th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I would like to know how to get this oil sent to me… and how to use it… and how to make it.
God bless you and please advise,
Truth Seeker.
November 8th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Greetings Truth Seeker,
Thank you for your comments and inquiries. This is certainly is something which should be addressed here.
There are groups which have contacted me and are willing supply small amounts (IE: Drams) of the oil for religious anointing or healing and they are listed within my web site. I am not sure of their requirements nor their rituals in the making of the Holy Oil, but I think they require membership to obtain it, or at least membership on how to make it. They are not related in any way to me other than, in my respect for their efforts to heal with this oil or their religious dialog. I am aware of at least 2 cases with-in these groups, where the oil was administered religiously to persons with Gangrene in the legs, where amputation was eminent. The application of the Holy Oil resulted with total salvation of these persons legs. I am also aware of other healing’s with the Holy Oil. However my understanding is that these were repeated treatments over a period of time, along with prayer.
That said, depending on the Country where you reside you could be at great risk to make a full batch of the Holy Anointing Oil, as described in Exodus 30:23. Certainly in the United States you could face 30 years in prison for possession of the 6 pounds of Cannabis required in Exodus 30:23 to make this oil, and you will very likely be denied to make a religious use case here. And that is based on the fact that every case that I have seen or looked at historically, save for one Rastafarian case in Guam has not been victorious.
I will say that I have never seen a case come forth regarding the making of the Holy Oil in the USA. However there are many groups including Rastafarian’s, Ethiopian Zion Coptic’s, and numbers of other religious groups which have failed at the attempt in the Judicial System with-in the United States to even be permitted to argue religious use case, even with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in place, which made the religious use of Peyote legal for the Native American Church.
Where I live the law is that possession of under 20 grams of cannabis is a misdemeanor.
If you are looking to make the Holy Oil for Christian anointing, I can say that I have seen no reference that a lesser amount is not permitted to be made, in the Bible or any other Christian text. This is not to say that making a lessor amount was not restricted as hundreds of ancient Christian documents were burnt into non existence, by the early Church. I have in the past, written a formula on how to make the Holy Oil based on a lessor amount which can even be reduced further based on your local laws to keep your risks under a felony.
8 ozs of Olive Oil
6 ozs of pure Myrrh
6 ozs of Cassia Bark
3 ozs of Cannabis Bud
3 ozs of Cinnamon bark or leaf.
Each item is slowly boiled into to olive oil. Prayer is given throughout this process to make it acceptable unto God. Excess oil is shaken off after being boiled into the olive oil very slowly. This may require several days. At the end the oil must be exorcised with a prayer of exorcism.
Regarding anointing with this oil as far as the fire baptism goes I suggest you at least see my film because there are many aspects to the Fire Baptism.
May God Bless You
Terry Winger
November 8th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Thank you Terry for sharing this information.
I was wondering?
After you boil it all together (in a Crockpot?) for a few days… should it be strained?
If so what is best to use?
Thanks again for the info it is truly well received.
God bless you and thank you for freeing the Holy Oil.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Dear Truth Seeker
If you boil it all together at once or use powdered ingredients you will have a cake dough not oil. You boil the oil adding small amounts at a time shaking off excess as you go. You want the whole bark, leaf or bud of the ingredients. The myrrh will mostly dissolve.
Cheers
Terry
November 10th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Terry, thanks again.
I guess I am still a little confused by the “shaking off excess as you go”?
What do you mean?
What am I shaking, and what is the excess?
This is my very first time, and as you can tell I am clueless.?.?
Thanks again,
November 12th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Greetings Truth Seeker,
Begin by boiling the Olive oil in a pot. Add the myrrh first. Leave it in as most will dissolve and any remaining can be stained at the end. Most will dissolve in 20 minutes or less. Next throw in small amounts of the other items at a time. Let these boil for at least 30 minutes at a time. After that take the cassia bark or cannabis bud out and shake off the excess oil that is on the bud or bark and throw it out. then repeat the process until you have boiled all the ingredients into the oil . When you are done you can strain the oil through a fine mesh strainer. You will end up with reddish brown oil with a wonderful smell.
Remember to pray unto the Father, that the Holy Oil be exorcised and for it to be acceptable, in the name of Yahsua (Jesus).
RE: Anointing
A simple anointing is a cross painted on the forehead with the Holy Oil, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. *This oil was not to be put upon a stranger as described in Exodus. For me if a person says they believe in Jesus (Yahsua), and have had water baptism, then that is good enough for me to offer the anointing.
A Chrism anointing is a cross on the forehead, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Next anoint the sides of each eye, then the nostrils, the ear lobes, the sides of the mouth, and over the heart that the person have a pure heart. Some also anoint the feet that their journey remain pure.
Good Luck
Terry
December 17th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
mfger,
I hope you read this. I was skimming your website, and noticed that you strongly back the gnostics. We will return to that. The Mystery of Faith that is alluded to in the Early Church Fathers, which I have surely read more extensively than you, is the same mystery that had the Romans believing this strange cult that followed the Nazarene ate their god at feasts where there were great “love orgies.” It was quite misconstrued. The Love Feasts were the Agape Meals had on Saturday, or on Sunday, following the Mystery of Faith, where the Christians ate their God. The Mystery of Faith has nothing to do with the baptism of fire, also Known as Chrismation or Confirmation, but of the Holy Eucharist. This is historical, unlike your hypothesis. I can see where you can come up with your ideas. I suggest you read the writings of Justin Martyr, along with the book published by Penguin Classics entitled “Early Christian Writings.” This will truly enlighten you about the Mystery of Faith. There is also a great book that can aid you in your quest for truth, it is called “Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquilina. It is chock full of primary sources, heck, if I remember correctly, it is about half primary source documents. I gave the book away, so I can not be certain. Also, you can get the 38 volume set of Early Church Writings from http://www.christianbook.com for under $200 if you buy a $10 membership. Otherwise it will be app $250. I also own this.
About the gnostics… what is your thought on their teaching that women must first be made into men in order to enter heaven? I think it is a fair question, being that you use their writings, and deny that they are heretics….
December 17th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I also must add… “Any text out of context is a pretext.” I believe you started with an idea, and went forward to “prove” this idea. That would explain your unreasoned, and unhistorical attacks on the Catholic Church along with the backing of such groups as the gnostics, whom you also use out of context. This may be due to ignorance, whether intentional, or out of ignorance I know not. We can discuss this more if you wish. I printed my email as I was directed. God bless.
Christopher
December 18th, 2007 at 3:34 am
Well Greetings Brother Christopher,
You come to this web blog from a web discussion linked to one of my Film Trailer sites, which is on You Tube. We both know this because you have basically the same comments there today. Yesterday I went to that link, to see the string of comments, only to find myself and any involved in this research being called pot heads, liars and sending people to hell in various posts.
When I went there I posted some fairly nice comments only to be attacked by one of your members calling some of my early Christian sources “IE: Gospel of Phillip”, and others Heretics. Along with stating my research was flawed because of these heretics, the research on cannabis in the Holy Oil, being my opinion, etc.
I simply responded by referring to the very early practice of the Roman Catholic Church of declaring people Heretics; the burning at the stake of many early Christian Groups including Gnostic and Jewish Christians, along with the burning of books and so on. I also referred to the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which was based on the Roman Sun God Mithra, whose religion considered Sunday not Saturday a Sacred day of Rest, and was called the Venerable Day of the Sun. I did not bring up December 25th which was the Birthday of Mithra.
I then referred to the Council of Laodicea in 364 AD, where in canon 29 the Roman Catholic Church declared that resting on the Sabbath was Judaizing and that any Christian practicing resting on the Sabbath would be anathema (offered unto God), which later became excommunicated. The way you were offered unto God was burning at the stake.
I then pointed to the original Christian Church which was in Jerusalem, under James the Just, the Brother of Jesus, who practiced Christianity in a Jewish way, and this group was later declared heretics.
All of this is very important to understand how the Holy Oil as described in Exodus was removed within the early Church.
You know, I was not trying to insult Catholics, but this guy was really on me. Frankly I felt like I was in the inquisition on this site along with all its hecklers. Now I generally welcome this in the effort to enter a discussion on all this , but I just don’t have the time at the moment, so I had to exit the discussion. There are other comments today on this site http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=2095075&trail=14 which I would love to address. But I just cant keep up with it all especially for a small group which is so hostile. I do not have the time to do it. Just to respond to you has taken a great deal of time.
Now let us look at some of your comments here on my site, and I will respond. Hopefully we can find some
common ground.
You state:
I believe you started with an idea, and went forward to “prove” this idea. That would explain your unreasoned, and unhistorical attacks on the Catholic Church along with the backing of such groups as the Gnostics, whom you also use out of context. This may be due to ignorance, whether intentional, or out of ignorance I know not. We can discuss this more if you wish. I printed my email as I was directed. God bless.
Christopher.
Well Christopher, where exactly do I quote the Gnostics out of context? I am quoting from early Christian writings on Baptism, before the Roman Catholic Church under Constantine was established. Further I am not quoting from just Gnostics here. I tried to obtain anything on the Baptism from the earliest Christian writers on Baptism.
Also, just exactly which of my statements anywhere, is unreasoned, and unhistorical attacks on the Catholic Church. Do you deny the inquisition? The history of the Church attacks itself. I am simply giving a historical review of the Holy Oil and the development of the Fire Baptism. Frankly the Roman Catholic Church baptism is among the closest to the original baptism based on my research, save for the Holy Oil, and that is not being used by any mainstream Christian Church, even with the calamus translation.
The fact is that I have stated on one of my posts that the Catholic Church and all Christian Churches are great institutions and all service God today. Most Churches today help the poor and the Homeless, and do great works. What I am referring to here happened 1700 - 1800 years ago. There is nothing unhistorical or unreasoned about it. If you still feel that, then give me specifics to you objections and we can debate them here.
RE the Mystery of Faith: Yes, Jesus stated that “He that believeth in me, though he were dead yet shall he live”. This also is part of the Mystery of the First Resurrection. All Christians are saved by the Mystery of Faith. There is not doubt about it in my mind.
Anyway I thank you for posting here. In my mind, The Beast of Revelation was the Roman Empire, not the Catholic Church of today or any other religion today. But when you consider the anointing and the false anointing as discussed so feverishly today, perhaps you can see the point of this entire project, because it took place almost 2 millennia ago.
Again Thanks for your post!
God Bless
Terry Winger
December 18th, 2007 at 4:23 am
Dear Terry,
First, I must say that I thought that the people on fisheaters were not charitable. I have only been posting there for a couple of weeks, if that. Now, you mention Constantine with the beginning of the Catholic Church. That there is historically inaccurate. Constantine did leagalize Christianity with the Edict of Milan in 312-313 but he was of Arian bent. Now, the Church had already been named “Catholic” before the end of the first century, as we find in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch. He was a disciple of John the Apostle. His writings are in the book “Early Christian Writings” that I mentioned earlier, and also in that 38 volume set that I linked to that protestant site for.
In his writings he also shows that the Hierarchy was Apostolic, that is, established by the Apostles of Christ. Also, in reference to the Catholic Church (Roman was a word Anglo Catholics coined to make them seem more legitamate… Roman, Orthodox, Anglican) we have Clement of Rome. He was the third successor of Peter, and the 4th Catholic Pope. He was ordained by Peter himself.
Now, Corinth was having upheaval, and the Bishop of Corinth could not put an end to the dispute. The Corinthians did not go to the nearby St. John, the last living Apostle, but took their case to the Bishop of Rome. He then dealt with the problem, for he was the earthly head of the whole Church.
And you bring up the Spanish Inquisition, also in an unhistorical light. The Spanish Inquisition is so called because it was a thing of the Country Spain, not the Catholic Religion. Now, lets look deeper at the SI. King Ferdinand got permission to have a census i.e. inquisition of his kingdom from the pope. He and his people just recently threw out the Muslims, who had had control of their country for some time. Fearing invasion, King Ferdinand did not wish to have anyone in power in his country that ma have decided to switch sides. So, he went about making sure that his kingdom would be free of powerful Muslims and Jews.
As it went on, King Ferdinand started to take it a little bit to far, and I mean simply a little too far, so the pope wrote him a letter commanding him to stop with his overboard tactics. For the most part, he had the non Christians convert or be deported. Over the full course of the Spanish Inquisition around 2000to 3000 died. That is 2000 to 3000 to many, but it happened for the national security of the Kingdom of Spain. If you doubt my numbers, consult the History channel, and their newest documentary on the subject. They address the Protestant exaggerations, and give the numbers that have always been accurate, as I just have.
To be continued….
December 18th, 2007 at 4:58 am
I simply responded by referring to the very early practice of the Roman Catholic Church of declaring people Heretics; the burning at the stake of many early Christian Groups including Gnostic and Jewish Christians, along with the burning of books and so on. I also referred to the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which was based on the Roman Sun God Mithra, whose religion considered Sunday not Saturday a Sacred day of Rest, and was called the Venerable Day of the Sun. I did not bring up December 25th which was the Birthday of Mithra.
This whole paragraph is false. Not a part of it can be substantiated. The only “book burning” that occured within the Catholic Church was the burning of horribly translated scripture. The burning of Gnostics and Jews is simply a false accusation. You can find such things in the writings of Jackkk Chickkk, but that is of no repute. Also, throw away your book by Lorraine Boettner, it is all lies. These and their colleagues are liars, and not Christian in any sense of the word.
Sunday worship… No, again, you are historically inaccurate. Sunday became the Lord’s Day because it was the day of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We find this in the first century. It was revered as the day of Resurrection, and became the “8th day” or day of eternity. At the onset, the Jewish Christians would go to the synagogues on the Sabbath, and then attend Mass on the Lord’s Day. At first both were celebrated in the synagogues, but before the end of the first century, the Jews had begun to look at the Christians as a foreign religion, rather that a new sect of Judaism. And that solidified the visualization of the New Covenant, following from the covenants of the Old Testament times, was a new thing, for all the world, Gentile and Jew.
To be continued…
December 18th, 2007 at 5:17 am
Dear Brother Chrisopher,
Um look, I just started another business 1 month ago with 2 partners working 7 days a week at the moment. I do not have much time to play.
But!!!!!
Based your first comments I am salavating to discuss all this with you. Based on your second comments I totally disagree with you.
For the moment I would ask that we cover one issue at a time. It may be a week between responses. Would you be interested in a discussion of Mithra?
Cheers Terry
December 18th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Terry is in italics
the others represented are regular.
When I went there I posted some fairly nice comments only to be attacked by one of your members calling some of my early Christian sources “IE: Gospel of Phillip”, and others Heretics. Along with stating my research was flawed because of these heretics, the research on cannabis in the Holy Oil, being my opinion, etc.
Besides the kookoo smilies, you had valid replies that cal no one a pot head. The Gnostics were heretical by any standpoint, no one, not even any of the Protestant or Evangelicals disagrees with such. But let me let the people speak for themselves……
Terry:
Greetings All
I am Terry Winger the producer of “The Fire Baptism and the Lost Sacraments”. I just was a bit annoyed to see some of the comments here.
Well, we seem to be an annoying group today, (at least I am) so welcome to the fray.
This film trailer is only meant to point to the website http://www.freeanointing.org. The complete film is a 90 minute film documentary on the history of the Holy Oil and the Fire Baptism based on the writings of the earliest Christians.
I went to the site.
There is full documentation in the website free for the reading that there was 6 pounds of Marijuana in the Holy Oil as described in Exodus 30:23.
I would say that your documentation is full of holes and wishful thinking. Let’s have a look:
Terry’s website
The original Hebrew for calamus, is Kaneh-bosem or Qaneh (Kaw-naw) Bosem. Some translations have this as “fragrant cane” or “aromatic cane.” Some researchers have argued that this is actually Sweet Cane or Sugar Cane, although the term sweet does not occur in the original manuscripts.
In the Hebrew terms such as Elohim (Pronounced El- Oh- Heem ) is rendered plural. So in the Hebrew Kaneh-bosem is also plural. The singular then is rendered Kaneh-bos.
Kaneh-Bos sounds remarkably close to the modern day word Cannabis. Could it be that cannabis was the plant given by God to be used in the Holy Anointing Oil?
Whether ground up cannabis is in the recipe is unimportant since the larger issue is the troubling errors that are at the root of your linguistic escapade.
But what is the effect to the baptism?
You may argue that the Anointing with the cannabis based oil has no redeeming value. I would like to point out that all Orthodox Churches practice the Chrism anointing. What started me into The Fire Baptism and the Lost Sacraments is that not one Church uses the Holy Anointing Oil as described in Exodus 30:23 even with the Calamus translation.
First, baptism is not the same sacrament as confirmation. Baptism cleanses the soul of original and actual sin and imparts sanctifying grace. In the traditional Roman rite, the baptized person is also anointed. Confirmation, sometimes called the sacrament of the Holy Ghost, usually takes place later and cannabis-free oil is used.
Second, you’re supposing that Jesus wasn’t Christ until a cannabis anointing took place, however, we know that isn’t true. He was the savior at the moment of His Incarnation and He is God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity.
Regardless, your misunderstandings don’t support your conclusion.
The Bible is very clear that this was the only oil to be used.
This shall be a “holy anointing oil” unto me throughout your generations. Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, shall even be cut off from his people. Exodus 30:31-33
You left out verse 32:
Quote:
32 The flesh of man shall not be anointed therewith, and you shall make none other of the same composition, because it is sanctified, and shall be holy unto you.
This could really be a problem for what you are advocating, couldn’t it?
Christ in the Greek, and the Messiah in Hebrew, means “the anointed ” For Jesus to receive the title “Christ”, he must have been anointed with the Holy Anointing Oil or Nazer Oil, as given to Moses in Exodus 30:23.
Hmmm. I don’t believe you. You have nothing to support your theory but your own musings, as you stated above.
The only scriptural reference to Jesus being anointed is in Bethany. But this is a record of Jesus being anointed with a Spikenard Oil. This would not convey the title Christ. The title “Christ” was only given by someone who is anointed with the Holy Anointing Oil or Nazer Oil, as described in Exodus 30:23.
Or He just needed to be God to be the Messiah, which He was from the beginning of time.
Some early Gnostic Christians teachings held that Jesus was not made Christ with an earthly oil, but in fact anointed by God in heaven.
The gnostics weren’t Christians, they were heretics.
For the Father anointed the Son, and the Son anointed the Apostles, and the Apostles anointed us. Gospel of Phillip
If Jesus was called “Christ” by receiving the Holy Anointing Oil, how are we to be called Christians? One would assume that we must also be anointed with the same, Holy Anointing Oil, or Nazar Oil, as described in Exodus 30:23.
You haven’t shown your position to be true, and citing heretics won’t cut it. Your entire position is untenable.
The Chrism or (anointing) is superior to baptism, for it is from the word chrism that we are called Christians. Gospel of Phillip.
Well, since we know that the gnostics were heretics, and we know from Exodus 30:32 that anointing with the recipe is forbidden to men, these guys were simply dragging souls into error, much as you are attempting to do.
“Are you unwilling to be anointed with the Oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)
I would like to see this in context. When I google it, there is only one return. Guess where?
If you deny this Holy Oil then you deny the Title Christ for Jesus. This Holy Oil was used on incense and burnt inside the Temple.
Nonsense and non sequitur.
At any rate thanks for the link to the film trailer.
Yes, thanks Crux Fidelis. It was incredible.
Quote:
God Bless
May Our Lady lead you to her Son.
and then you replied
Thanks for looking at my site and your critique. I would reply to your comments one by one, however I think a few comments are all that are needed.
RE: Gnostics as Heretics
Well declaring people heretics, burning people at the stake, burning their books, changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, or the Mithraic Venerable day of the Sun, are all the legacy of the Roman Catholic Church. Even practicing Christianity in a Jewish way was declared a heresy in the Council of Laodicea, even though the original Church at Jerusalem under James the Just, Brother of Jesus practiced it in a Jewish way. The Gnostics and early Jewish Christians were not the Heretics Here. Jesus never instructed to declare people Heretics and burn people at the stake. Yet you seem to have no problem with it.
Jesus gave the power and authority to teach to His Church, so I can rely on the Church for guidance in the matter. Gnosticism is indeed a heresy, but that need not surprise us. The Faith has been under attack since the earliest days, as attested to by scripture. In fact, St. Jude warns the faithful against heretics. Nevertheless, the gnostics existed before Christ, so to claim that they held the true Faith is ridiculous. If their lies about Our Lord aren’t enough to convince you of their errors, then just look at the timeline. Something tells me though, that a little thing like continuity won’t have much effect on your opinions.
RE Cannabis in the Holy Oil
The full facts are on http://www.freeanointing.org/cannabis_in_the_holy_oil.htm. I will let the reader decide if my facts are not accurate here.
Your opinions, you mean.
RE: The Title Christ for Jesus.
Jesus being called Christ really has little to do with him being God or the Son of God. Christ was the title given to someone who was anointed with the Holy Oil of God. I will quote a few early Christian writers on this while discussing baptism.
Tertullian of Carthage (160 - 225 AD) writes that after water baptism, ” we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, (a practice derived), from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, then were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called “Christ”. Tertullian of Carthage “On Baptism”.
Consider now why this is done, for the eyes of a wise man are in his head; therefore the ointment flows down to the beard, that is to say, to the beauty of youth; and therefore, Aaron’s beard, that we too may become a chosen race, priestly and precious, for we are all anointed with spiritual grace for a share in the kingdom of God and in the priesthood.”Saint Ambrose, “On the Mysteries”
The Chrism or (anointing) is superior to baptism, for it is from the word chrism that we are called Christians. Gospel of Phillip.
“Are you unwilling to be anointed with the Oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.” Theophilus of Antioch (181AD)
Cheers
Terry Winger
I would still like to see the full context of your quotes, except that gnostic one. As I said before, that one has only one hit on google- your website. If you do decide to provide links for context, please keep in mind that this is a Catholic forum and there are a few rules that non-Catholics are supposed to adhere to.
Well do your own research.
Try Searching the following, it worked for me even the gnostic one:
then were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called “Christ”
we are all anointed with spiritual grace for a share in the kingdom of God and in the priesthood
superior to baptism, for it is from the word chrism that we are called Christians
Are you unwilling to be anointed with the Oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God
This will be my final post here. Debate it among yourselves. I do not have the time to discuss all this at length with such a small group. I only posted to point to the web site http://www.freeanointing.org
Cheers and God Bless
Terry Winger
Nope. Cite your sources. I don’t have time to do it for you.
Gee I already did.
Where? Your own website? LOL!
I meant where I can find the quotes you used. If you can’t or won’t, don’t worry about it.
I just did.
I just stated:
Try Searching the following, it worked for me even the gnostic one:
then were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called “Christ”
we are all anointed with spiritual grace for a share in the kingdom of God and in the priesthood
superior to baptism, for it is from the word chrism that we are called Christians
Are you unwilling to be anointed with the Oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God
And when I search that chunk of text, I have no idea which link you used in your research. Like I said, don’t worry about it.
Well they are all quotes by early Christian writers on baptism. These search terms should lead you to the origional text, which is what I am quoting from. Pick out the best Catholic site which quotes to it.
CheersI replied with the above:
I hope you read this. I was skimming your website, and noticed that you strongly back the gnostics. We will return to that. The Mystery of Faith that is alluded to in the Early Church Fathers, which I have surely read more extensively than you, is the same mystery that had the Romans believing this strange cult that followed the Nazarene ate their god at feasts where there were great “love orgies.” It was quite misconstrued. The Love Feasts were the Agape Meals had on Saturday, or on Sunday, following the Mystery of Faith, where the Christians ate their God. The Mystery of Faith has nothing to do with the baptism of fire, also Known as Chrismation or Confirmation, but of the Holy Eucharist. This is historical, unlike your hypothesis. I can see where you can come up with your ideas. I suggest you read the writings of Justin Martyr, along with the book published by Penguin Classics entitled “Early Christian Writings.” This will truly enlighten you about the Mystery of Faith. There is also a great book that can aid you in your quest for truth, it is called “Mass of the Early Christians” by Mike Aquilina. It is chock full of primary sources, heck, if I remember correctly, it is about half primary source documents. I gave the book away, so I can not be certain. Also, you can get the 38 volume set of Early Church Writings from http://www.christianbook.com for under $200 if you buy a $10 membership. Otherwise it will be app $250. I also own this.
About the gnostics… what is your thought on their teaching that women must first be made into men in order to enter heaven? I think it is a fair question, being that you use their writings, and deny that they are heretics….
There was one person that said, “They call it dope for a reason.” Or something right near it. There were a few kookoo smilies, but not at all what you alluded to. The responsed that were given you were well reasoned for the most part. They wanted actual citations of your quotes, but you do not have the documentation handy to pass it on, or you just found some quotes and used them without knowing of their context or authenticity. That 38 volume set that I mentioned would be really good for you to have. It is under $200. and the retail is $1100.
To be Continued
December 18th, 2007 at 5:32 am
That will work. I work offshore, and sometimes am at sea for extended periods of time. One issue at a time is good. My email is boanarges_catholic@hotmail.com we can post on here. It may be good to do it via e-mail, and paste it to here….
December 19th, 2007 at 12:21 am
Dear Brother Christopher,
Hey it is fine to discuss it all here. Emailing is just double work.
I will start into Mithra in a minute but first I wanted to cover a few things in your comments above.
You State: Now, you mention Constantine with the beginning of the Catholic Church.
I am not sure where I stated that Constantine was the beginning of the Catholic Church but, I concede to your answer here up to the Spanish inquisition.
Then you state: You bring up the Spanish Inquisition, also in an unhistorical light. Followed by a description of the Spanish inquisition.
Well lets give a to be continued on that one. But first understand when I am referring to the Inquisition, I am including all of it not just the Spanish part of it, i.e. the slaughter of the Waldanese, the Knights Templar’s, the Anabaptists, the witch hunts and so on. This is a large topic and it has been a while since I have read it all, so lets save it for later.
RE the Gnostics: Again a very large topic. There is no doubt we disagree on this, based on your comments.
Again lets save that for later. I will say that there were many groups of Gnostics and all had differing beliefs of Jesus just as the Koran today has testaments of Jesus and Mary, yet the Muslims consider Jesus a great prophet, and not the Son of God. Jesus did not send out just one disciple to preach, and there were many religious factions that absorbed these disciples teachings. In a search of these other heretical texts, along with the writings of the early Catholic and other Orthodox writers, we find many similarities. It is here, I feel that we find the closest picture of the original Jesus. Regarding the various Gnostic groups, I find the Ebionites the most interesting. Again to be Continued……….
RE: The Sabbath, You state: Sunday worship… No, again, you are historically inaccurate. Sunday became the Lord’s Day because it was the day of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We find this in the first century. It was revered as the day of Resurrection, and became the “8th day” or day of eternity. At the onset, the Jewish Christians would go to the synagogues on the Sabbath, and then attend Mass on the Lord’s Day. At first both were celebrated in the synagogues, but before the end of the first century, the Jews had begun to look at the Christians as a foreign religion, rather that a new sect of Judaism.
Here we can begin our discussion of Mithra, Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea, the Birthday of Jesus, (Nice time of the year to do it ), the Sabbath, The Mystery Babylon, The first Church in Jerusalem under James the Just, and lastly the Ebionites. Then we could go into the Gnostics or any thing else you like.
Frankly before we do that I would like to hear your input on your opinion of the Holy Oil containing cannabis? What is your opinion, and that may even be another debate.
Meanwhile refresh yourself into the above topics. It should be a great discussion.
God Bless
Terry
December 20th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
I do not know the history of the oil of anointing well enough to have an opinion on it… I think that there are some great medicinal properties in cannabis, and I believe that there was a time in my life where it saved my life. On the other hand, I believe the “recreational” use of marijuana to be gravely sinful.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
So that I can see your view more accurtely on the cannabis deal, I would like to purchase your video. Do you have paypal, that is the only way I do business on the net?
December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 am
Let’s start on the Lord’s Day. I have the councils of the Church.
Canon XXIX Synod of Laodicea:
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. ut if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Ancient epitome of canon XXIX:
A Christian shall not stop work on the Sabbath, but on the Lord’s Day.
Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series 2 volume 14 pg 148
December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 am
Let’s start on the Lord’s Day. I have the councils of the Church.
Canon XXIX Synod of Laodicea:
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. ut if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Ancient epitome of canon XXIX:
A Christian shall not stop work on the Sabbath, but on the Lord’s Day.
Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series 2 volume 14 pg 148
December 21st, 2007 at 4:12 am
Here are some Early Church Father quotes from www.scripturecatholic.com concerning worship on the Lord’s Day rather than the Sabbath.
Didache, 14 (A.D. 90).
On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks, but first confess your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”
Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).
“If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death–whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master.”
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:16 (A.D. 202).
“The seventh day, therefore, is proclaimed a rest–abstraction from ills–preparing for the Primal Day,[The Lord’s Day] our true rest; which, in truth, is the first creation of light, in which all things are viewed and possessed. From this day the first wisdom and knowledge illuminate us. For the light of truth–a light true, casting no shadow, is the Spirit of God indivisibly divided to all, who are sanctified by faith, holding the place of a luminary, in order to the knowledge of real existences. By following Him, therefore, through our whole life, we become impossible; and this is to rest.”
Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 2 (A.D. 203).
“In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practiced circumcision, and were thus rendered “friends of God.” For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah also, uncircumcised–yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath–God freed from the deluge. For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God.”
Teaching of the Apostles, 2 (A.D. 225).
“The apostles further appointed: On the first day of the week let there be service, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and the oblation: because on the first day of the week our Lord rose from the lace of the dead and on the first day of the week He arose upon the world, and on the first day of the week He ascended up to heaven, and on the first day of the week He will appear at last with the angels of heaven.”
Origen, Commentary on John, 2:27 (A.D. 229).
“Hence it is not possible that the rest after the Sabbath should have come into existence from the seventh of our God; on the contrary, it is our Saviour who, after the pattern of His own rest, caused us to be made in the likeness of His death, and hence also of His resurrection.”
Victorinus, On the Creation of the World (A.D. 300).
“On the seventh day He rested from all His works, and blessed it, and sanctified it. On the former day we are accustomed to fast rigorously, that on the Lord’s day we may go forth to our bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become a rigorous fast, lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ Himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, says by His prophets that ‘His soul hateth;’ which Sabbath He in His body abolished.”
Eusebius, Church History, 1:4,8 (A.D. 312).
“They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we.”
Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).
“Also that day which is holy and blessed in everything, which possesses the name of Christ, namely the Lord’s day, having risen upon us on the fourth of Pharmuthi (Mar. 30), let us afterwards keep the holy feast of Pentecost.” Athanasius, Epistle 9:11 (A.D. 335).
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 4:37 (A.D. 350).
“Fall not away either into the sect of the Samaritans, or into Judaism: for Jesus Christ henceforth hath ransomed thee. Stand aloof from all observance of Sabbaths, and from calling any indifferent meats common or unclean.”
December 21st, 2007 at 4:18 am
A question: Do you consider the Bible an authoritative or inerrant book, or as some writings, among many, that hold some truths and some errors like all other writings? I want to know where we stand, and what, if any, writings I can use as authoritative in our discussions.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:23 am
Here are some reflections on the Catholic Scriptures also found at www.scripturecatholic.com :
Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.
Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.
Acts 20:7 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.
1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.
Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”
2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.
Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.
Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:26 am
That is my current reference base for our Lord’s Day worship discussion. I will look up in my books, if necessary, to find the page number references of the Early Church Fathers (henceforth ECF) in my library.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Good luck with your site in the future!
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:43 am
Dear Brother Gregory,
Cool Stuff I just Just got off work, I will need a bit of time to look at all of it. I will try to deal with it soon
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 am
Brother Gregory,
What is you dating on the Gospel of Thomas?
Cheers
Terry
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Dear Brother Christopher,
Sorry I dont know why I called you Brother Gregory, I dont even know a gregory. I have a few hours to respond to you. Seems there is alot of scripture on this subject. I am aware of the development of the Lords day. In fact, I conceed that history, but we will discuss it further.
I would like to bring in the “Gospel of Thomas”, which based on various fragments is dated 40 to 60 AD. This is a list of the sayings of the Lord Jesus.
One of these sayings of Jesus is “And if you do not keep the sabbath a sabbath, you will not see the father”
I will get into this much further with you but I have a party to go to in a few hours. I would like to hear your response to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.
Cheers
Terry
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 am
Thank for making this valuable information available to the public.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Greetings all.
Thank you for your comments Alex and Ahmed.
To Brother Christopher,
While I wait for your responce on the Gospel of Thomas, I will add a few things.
Above you ask: A question: Do you consider the Bible an authoritative or inerrant book, or as some writings, among many, that hold some truths and some errors like all other writings? I want to know where we stand, and what, if any, writings I can use as authoritative in our discussions.
Well this website and the Film, discusses an error in translation of Exodus 30:23. Also the Bible today is widely debated as to the meanings of various translations of many scriptures. Also there are a number of Bibles all with variations. My answer would be I consider the Bible an inerrant book, or as some writings, among many, that hold some truths and some errors like all other writings. But then that is Just my opinion. If the Bible is authoratative or inerrant really does not matter as we are discussing many issues not in the Bible.
Regarding the various Scripture you refer to above on the Day of the Lord you attempt set up a case for the change of Saturday to Sunday, for the Sabbath ie “The Day of the Lord”. Well that change is widely debated. Just check out the internet on it, and you will see that.
Yet in the Bible, the Day of the Lord, has several meanings. The day of the Lord in the Old Testament was Saturday. “Lord” here referred to Yahweh.
You state above: Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.
Well this is what it actually says : Rev 1:8-11 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Sorry no mention of Sunday here.
So what does the Day of the Lord Refer to here?
Revelation 6:12-17 states,
I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?”
And notice Joel 2:30-31,
And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth: Blood and fire and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD.
Joel shows that the time in Revelation is called, “the day of the LORD” in the Old Testament. When the New Testament quotes an Old Testament verse which uses the term LORD (Yahveh) and is most frequently quoted as Lord. And that is precisely how verse 31 is rendered in Acts 2:20, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come” (KJV).
Joel 1:15 states,
Alas for the day! For the day of the LORD is at hand; It shall come as destruction from the Almighty”.
Zephaniah shows us,
The great day of the LORD is near; It is near and hastens quickly. The noise of the day of the LORD is bitter; There the mighty men shall cry out. That day is a day of wrath, A day of trouble and distress, A day of devastation and desolation, A day of darkness and gloominess, A day of clouds and thick darkness, A day of trumpet and alarm Against the fortified cities And against the high towers. “I will bring distress upon men, And they shall walk like blind men, Because they have sinned against the LORD; Their blood shall be poured out like dust, And their flesh like refuse” (Zephaniah 1:14-17).
(Isaiah 13:6-13)
Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Therefore all hands will be limp, Every man’s heart will melt, And they will be afraid. Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them; They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth; They will be amazed at one another;Their faces will be like flames. Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. “I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens,And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger”.
Regarding the Writings of Paul on the Sabbath:
Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, “So I declared on oath in my anger, ‘They shall never enter my rest.’” And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “And on the seventh day God rested from all his work.” And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.” It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience…There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience (Hebrews 4:3-6,9-11, NIV).
Also Paul observed the Sabbath as seen in Acts:
Acts 13:42-44 “the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God”. Also Acts 18:4 states, “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks”.
John being the leader of the Church in Asia Minor, and a claimed follower of his named Polycarp, kept the Saturday Sabbath. Sabbath-keeping in Asia Minor was publicly still going on to at least 364 A.D. or else the Eastern Church would not have convened a Council in Laodicea to excommunicate any who rested on the seventh day. This still did not stop all Sabbath keeping.
But it was not just Jewish Christians keeping the Sabbath as Sozomen reported in the mid-5th Century,
The people of Constantinople, and almost everywhere, assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.
And Sabbath-keeping has existed throughout history even to today.
The New Testament does tell us which day is the Lord’s Day:
Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28 )
For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8).
The verses in Mark and Matthew are also consistent with the Old Testament:
Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made (Genesis 2:3).
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:11).
If you turn away your foot from the Sabbath, From doing your pleasure on My holy day, And call the Sabbath a delight, The holy day of the LORD honorable (Isaiah 58:13).
I wait to hear your comments.
Cheers
Terry
December 24th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Dear Brother Christopher,
Sorry I did not answer your question on paypal and my film. I am not sure here, this is being done by CreateSpace which is owned by Amazon.com. I have never purchased one.
Cheers
Terry
December 25th, 2007 at 8:13 am
I would like to bring in the “Gospel of Thomas”, which based on various fragments is dated 40 to 60 AD. This is a list of the sayings of the Lord Jesus. Well, the scholars disagree with your age, and place over 200 years later. So, I must agree with the scholars on this one. Also, the Gospel of Thomas is very problematic in it’s teachings concerning women. Unless you agree with these teachings, this book is inadmissible in our discussion.
The day of the Lord and the Lords day refer to two different things. The day of the Lord speaks of His coming, the Lord’s day is the day of resurrection.
I will go on later. Merry Christmas.
Christopher
December 27th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Dear Brother Christopher,
There is an dating for the Gospel of Thomas, or pre 100 AD. I will offer the argument put forth by this earlier camp quoted from Wilkapedia I can go further.
The early camp argues that since it consists of mostly original material and does not seem to be based on the canonical gospels, it most likely was transcribed from an oral tradition. Since the practice of considering oral tradition as authoritative ended during the 1st century, the Gospel of Thomas therefore had probably been written before the year 100, perhaps as early as around 40. Since this date precedes the dates of the traditional four gospels, there is some claim that the Gospel of Thomas is or has some connection to the hypothetical Q document—a text (or oral verse) that, with Mark, is postulated to have been a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.[2] The early camp argues that about half of the material in Thomas has no known parallels to the New Testament, and at least some of this material could plausibly be attributed to the historical Jesus, such as saying 42 “Be passers-by”.
The early camp also notes that Q is almost universally regarded by secular biblical scholars as the most parsimonious explanation for the synoptic problem and is widely regarded to be the earliest written text of Jesus’ teachings. It has been hypothesized that Q exists in 3 strata, termed Q1, Q2, and Q3, with the apocalyptic material belonging in Q2 and Q3. Secular biblical scholars have identified 37 sayings that overlap between Thomas and Q, all of which are conjectured to be in either Q1 or Q2 and none of which included the latter, apocalyptic material of Q3.[citation needed] As Thomas does not incorporate material from Q3, it was not aware of Q3 and precedes it. The Q layers of Q1 and Q2 are thought to predate the four gospels. Hence the Gospel of Thomas is thought to be early.[citation needed]
Another argument for the early date (originally brought forward as the central argument of Elaine Pagels’ book Beyond Belief The Secret Gospel of Thomas) is that there seems to be conflict between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas. Certain passages in the Gospel of John can only be understood in light of a community based on the theological teachings of the Gospel of Thomas. John is the only one of the Canonical Gospels that gives Thomas a speaking part - indicating respect for the Thomas community. This is because, the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas are theologically similar in almost every respect except one.
Where Thomas gets it wrong is demonstrated by the “Doubting Thomas” episode of the Gospel of John. In the story of Doubting Thomas - the Johannine Community is theologically rebutting the Thomas community. The Johannine Community believes in a bodily resurrection; Thomas community believes in a spiritual resurrection - and completely rejects a bodily resurrection. So the Gospel of John has Thomas physically touch the risen Jesus and acknowledges his bodily nature. Her interpretation of John requires that a Thomas community existed when John’s Gospel was written.
Another argument for the early camp is that there is overlap between Paul’s epistles and Thomas.[citation needed] The authentic corpus of Paul’s epistles, which includes First Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, is regarded by almost all biblical scholars as predating the canonical gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.[citation needed] Some secular scholars see common themes in Paul and in Thomas absent from the canonical gospels (nor independently attested by them), and conclude that Thomas draws upon a common sayings pool also used by the canonical gospels and Paul.[citation needed] According to this theory, Paul drew on sayings widely recognized to have come from Jesus, some of which are uniquely preserved in the Gospel of Thomas.[citation needed]
The early camp argues that if the author of Thomas knew of the New Testament, including the Pauline epistles, and if it is thought that “Thomas” showed gnostic tendencies, then it is surprising that he did not take the opportunity to include many verses that would have supported such “gnostic” theology, which are present in the canonical New Testament, such as John 8:58, “Before Abraham was born, I AM.” The Gospel of Thomas includes a great deal of material unparalleled in the New Testament, but lacks distinctive terms from second-century Gnosticism such as archons, pleroma, aeons, or demiurge that would be expected from a product of the later Gnostic period: this is seen by some as another justification for an earlier date of authorship.[citation needed]
The early camp counters arguments from the history of religion (and the relatively late appearance of gnostic thought) that Thomas reflects very little to none of the full-blown Valentinian gnosticism as seen in many of the other texts in the cache of manuscripts found at Nag Hammadi.[citation needed] In fact, some point out that not all of the Nag Hammadi texts are gnostic; for example, one of the texts is an excerpt of a paraphrase of Plato’s Republic, which predates gnosticism by centuries. However, it is speculated that gnosticism was heavily influenced by the creation myth that Plato put forth in Timaeus, and that the fragment enclosed in Codex VI has Socrates make a rather far-fetched analogy of just and unjust behavior based on a gruesome image of the Chimaera, the same sort of argument and image that full-blown Gnostics revelled in.[citation needed]
It is also noted that gnosticism was a fluid belief system containing both new elements and old, and that material identified as “gnostic” in Thomas may have been current as early as 50 especially since the Gospel of John is in many ways just as Gnostic as Thomas.[citation needed]
As for the focus on the cross - which Thomas lacks - early daters contend that Thomas belonged to an early form of Christianity, exemplified by Q, that concentrated on the sayings and teachings of Jesus.[citation needed]
Earl Doherty [1] argued that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more “primitive” or “original” form than the latter. Stevan L. Davies provides statistical evidence that the lack of order with the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels and probably predated them.[3]
Cheers
Terry
Happy Holidays
December 30th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Wikipedia is simply not a reputable source. Another note on this article from wikipedia is the fact that there are not citations. Also, there are many different dates for the 3 synoptic gospels. Tradition tells us that St. Stephen died with a manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew in his hands. Matthew, for most all of history, has been known to be the first Gospel written. It was disputed for a period, but is less so now. The latest Gospel was written by John, around 90.
December 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Dear Christopher,
The wikipedia is only a summary of the debate, on the dating of the Gospel of Thomas. It is clearly an Early Christian document, which has Jesus discussing the Sabbath, “And if you do not keep the Sabbath a Sabbath, you will not see the father”.
In addition the First Christian Church in Jerusalem under James the Just, the Brother of Jesus practiced the Sabbath and even prayed in the Temple, on the Sabbath. This Sabbath was kept by large groups of early Christians. Jesus stated that he did not come to change the Law, but to fulfill it.
The Day of the Lord or the Lords Day in the Old Testament, referred to the Day of Yahweh; The Sabbath was Saturday.
I agree there was a movement to practice a Sunday Sabbath based on the Lords resurrection, and it was mandated as I have written before on the Council of Laodicea. This Sunday Sabbath was embraced by the Roman Empire, who had a God called Mithra, whose sacred day of rest was Sunday. Even the Coins of Constantine were inscribed: “SOL INVICTO COMITI” (COMMITTED TO THE INVINCIBLE SUN). The cult of Sol Invictus and that of Mithra are virtually the same. Mithra was also born on December 25th, the day the Roman Church gave for our Lords Birthday. It has been a tradition of the Gentiles to worship on Sunday since the days of Babylon, who also worshiped Mithra. Perhaps you are familiar with the term Mystery Babylon.
The observance of Sunday as the Sabbath was by decree of the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine in 321 AD. He issued an edict on March 7, 321 AD, “Let all the judges and towns people, and the occupation of all trades rest ON THE VENERABLE DAY OF THE SUN: but let those who are situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business of agriculture: because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines: lest, the critical moment let slip, men should lose the commodities granted by heaven.”
Again Canon 29 of the Council of Laodicea:
Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Mithra and the Venerable Day of the Sun had won. Practicing Christianity in a Jewish way was a Heresy, and people practicing Christianity in such a way anathema from Christ.
Ah Mystery Babylon, it is here that even the Holy Oil of God was done away with, even unto today.
Cheers
Terry
December 30th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
You err. Laodicea was condemning the Judaizing as the Bible also condemned Judaizing. Also, you use the so called gospel q as a source. That is a figment of some psuedo intellectuals that doubt the authenticity of the synoptic Gospels. Also, you claim that the Gospel of John is gnostic, which is laughable.
I am doing more research on the gospel of Thomas, but that writing has many problematic doctrines, and you have the burden of justifying them if you wish to use that text. And the dating that you give is not accepted by any scholars of repute. So, I will not let that slide.
Sunday was used by the Apostles as the Lord’s Day, which is evident in the quotes I gave you above. You had beef with one, and apparently tossed the rest out on that bone. We cannot do that.
So, your “Q” source is not viable, and your “Thomas” source is extremely questionable. As for Constantine’s 321 decree, I have no knowledge, but I do know that his mother was a devout Catholic, and he leaned toward the Arian belief. Both of which had Mass on Sunday as the day of obligation. He did strive for unity inside his Empire, but that did not change the fact that the Apostles of Jesus Christ, and his desciples who knew him personally celebrated on the Lord’s Day. This most likely came directly from Jesus, as this is when he often “broke bread” after his resurrection. “Broke Bread” being the symbol of the Holy Eucharist.
December 30th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Note on the date of Christmas, from 30 Days, an Italian Catholic publication:
“December 25 is an historical date,” Professor Tommaso Federici, Professor at the Pontifical Urbanian University and a consultant to two Vatican Congregations, has stressed. In an article in the Osservatore Romano on December 24, he wrote: “December 25 is explained as the ‘Christianization’ of a pagan feast, ‘birth of the Sol Invictus’; or as the symmetrical balance, an aesthetic balance between the winter solstice (Dec. 21-22) and the spring equinox (March 23-24). But a discovery of recent years has shed definitive light on the date of the Lord’s birth. As long ago as 1958, the Israeli scholar Shemaryahu Talmon published an in-depth study on the calendar of the Qumran sect [Ed. based , in part, on Parchment 4 Q 321: Parchment Number 321 from Cave 4Number 321 — 4 Q 321 — of the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls, see picture at left], and he reconstructed without the shadow of doubt the order of the sacerdotal rota system for the temple of Jerusalem (1 Paralipomenon/Chronicles 24, 7-18) in New Testament times. Here the family of Abijah, of which Zechariah (Zachary) was a descendant, father of John the herald and forerunner (Luke 1, 5), was required to officiate twice a year, on the days 8-14 of the third month, and on the days 24-30 of the eighth month. This latter period fell at about the end of September. It is not without reason that the Byzantine calendar celebrated ‘John’s conception’ on September 23 and his birth nine months later, on June 24. The ’six months’ after the Annunciation established as a liturgical feast on March 25, comes three months before the forerunner’s birth, prelude to the nine months in December: December 25 is a date of history.”
December 30th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Also:
by John Stormer
For too many years, pastors and teachers have said, “Of course we don’t know when Christ was actually born- but the time of year is not really important.” Jehovah’s Witnesses and others have taught that Christmas was “invented” in the fourth or fifth centuries. The supposed goal was giving a “Christian” facade or influence to the wild pagan or Satanic holiday observances during the winter solstice (the shortest days of the year).
What’s the real story? Is there any real evidence that Jesus Christ
was born at Christmas? A careful examination of a number of seemingly
unrelated Bible passages gives clear indication that the Lord Jesus was
indeed born at Christmas time. Such study will give new emphasis to what
Christ came to do. It will also provide a much deeper appreciation of all
that is hidden in the Word of God which can be discovered by those who
prayerfully search the scriptures.
Every word in the Bible is there because God put it there. He has a
purpose for every one of His words. Therefore, seemingly casual listing of
periods of time, genealogical references, etc. have significance which can be
discovered through prayerful study.
In Luke Chapter 1, the Bible records seemingly unimportant details
about what a priest named Zacharias was doing when an angel announced to him
that he and his wife were to have a child. The child was to be John the
Baptist who would prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Bible
further records that the Lord Jesus was conceived in the sixth month after
John the Baptist was conceived. Therefore, if the time of the conception of
John the Baptist could be determined, the birth date of the Lord Jesus could
be calculated.
The scriptures say (relevant passages are underlined): “There was in
the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of
the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name
was Elisabeth.
And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office
before God in the order of his course… ” Luke 1:5,8
At this point Zacharias demonstrated his amazing faithfulness to his
duties as a priest. Even though he had been given the wonderful news by the
angel that he and Elisabeth would have a son, Zacharias stayed in the temple
until the days of his course were completed.
“And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration
were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his
wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months…” Luke 1:23-24
The passage then describes how an angel came to Mary to announce that
she was to be the virgin mother of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus. The
scripture says:
“And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a
city of Galilee, named Nazareth. To a virgin espoused to a man whose name
was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary…” Luke
1:26-27
And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with
haste, into a city of Judah; and entered into the house of Zacharias, and
saluted Elisabeth.” Luke 1:39-40
Contained within these quoted passages are scriptures which point to
the exact time when Jesus was born. (Remember that God puts every word and
every detail into the Bible exactly as He wants it and for a purpose.) The
underlined words are the key.
In Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:8, we are told that Zacharias was a priest of
the course of Abia and that he fulfilled his priestly duties in the order of
his course. To understand the importance of the course of Abia and its
bearing on the date of John the Baptist’s conception, it is necessary to turn
to 1Chronicles 24:1-10. This passage describes how a thousand years before
Christ, King David established the courses for priestly service in the coming
temple. Twenty-four courses were established and numbered by drawing lots -
twelve courses for sanctuary service and twelve for the government of the
house of God.
Members of each course would serve during a month starting with the
Hebrew month of Nisan. (Because of the way the Hebrew calendar fluctuates,
the month Nisan can start anytime between early March and early April.) The
sons of Abijah (the Old Testament spelling for Abia) were in the eighth
course. Priests of Abia like Zacharias would, therefore, have each
ministered for some days during the eighth month which in some years because
of the fluctuation in the Hebrew calendar started as early as the fifth day
of our month of October. Zacharias would have returned home when his days of
service were accomplished and John the Baptist could have been conceived
sometime between October 15 and the end of the month.
After conception the scripture says that Elisabeth hid herself for
five months. Then in the sixth month of her pregnancy (which, based on the
above calculation, would have started about March 15 and continued until
April 15) the angel announced to the Virgin Mary that the Lord Jesus would
be conceived in her womb by the Holy Ghost. If this took place on or about
April 1 a “normal” gestation period of 270 days would have then had the Lord
Jesus due on or about December 25. How about that!
There are other scriptural and natural indicators that confirm that
the Lord was born at Christmas time. IN the account of His birth in Luke
2:8, we read:
“And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field,
keeping watch over their flock by night.”
My son-in-law, who has a degree in agriculture, after hearing the
above presentation, told me, “Certainly, the Lord Jesus was born at
Christmas. The only time shepherds spend the night in the fields with their
sheep is during the time when the lambs are born. The ewes become
‘attractive’ to the rams in the month after June 21, the longest day of the
year. The normal gestation period is five months so the ewes start lambing
about mid-December.” He added: Isn’t it natural that the Lamb of God who
takes away the sin of the world would be born when all the other lambs are
born?
This “coincidence” was too amazing for me to accept until I checked
it out. A former teacher from the school where I am the administrator is
married to a Montana sheep rancher. She confirmed what I had been told. She
said, “Oh, yes! None of the men who have flocks are in church for weeks at
Christmas. They have to be in the fields day and night to clean up and care
for the lambs as soon as they are born or many would perish in the cold.”
Isn’t that neat? God’s Lamb, who was to die for the sins of the world, was
born when all the other little lambs are born. Because He came and died the
centuries old practice of sacrificing lambs for sin could end.
There is another neat confirmation that God had His Son born at
Christmas. The days at the end of December are the shortest (and therefore
the darkest days) of the year. Jesus Christ said, “I am the light of the
world.” So at the time of the year when the darkness is greatest, God the
Father sent God the Son to be the Light of the world.
The Lord Jesus Christ came to earth, lived a sinless life and was
therefore qualified to pay the penalty for the sins of all mankind (which is
death). He paid it all- but all do not benefit from the wondrous gift God
bestowed on mankind at Christmas.
“He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his name.” John 1:11-12
John Stormer, Pastor Emeritus
Heritage Baptist Church, Florissant, MO
from the PCC Update, Winter 1996 (The ABeka magazine)
(PCC - Pensacola Christian College)
and here is another article using the words of St. John Chrysostom:
The History of Christmas
“With regard to our Savior’s Birth on December 25, we have St. John Chrysostom telling us, in his Homily for this Feast, that the Western Churches had, from the very commencement of Christianity, kept it on this day”
Taken from Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year:
We apply the name of Christmas to the forty days which begin with the Nativity of our Lord, December 25, and end with the Purification of the Blessed Virgin, February 2. It is a period which forms a distinct portion of the Liturgical Year, as distinct, by its own special spirit, from every other, as are Advent, Lent, Easter, or Pentecost. One same Mystery is celebrated and kept in view during the whole forty days. Neither the Feasts of the Saints, which so abound during this Season; nor the time of Septuagesima, with its mournful Purple; which often begins before Christmastide is over, seem able to distract our Holy Mother the Church from the immense joy of which she received the good tidings from the Angels (St. Luke 2:10) on that glorious Night for which the world had been longing four thousand years. The Faithful will remember that the Liturgy commemorates this long expectation by the four penitential weeks of Advent.
The custom of celebrating the Solemnity of our Saviour’s Nativity by a feast or commemoration of forty days duration is founded on the holy Gospel itself; for it tells us that the Blessed Virgin Mary, after spending forty days in the contemplation of the Divine Fruit of her glorious Maternity, went to the Temple, there to fulfill, in most perfect humility, the ceremonies which the Law demanded of the daughters of Israel, when they became mothers.
The Feast of Mary’s Purification is, therefore, part of that of Jesus’ Birth; and the custom of keeping this holy and glorious period of forty days as one continued Festival has every appearance of being a very ancient one, at least in the Roman Church. And firstly, with regard to our Saviour’s Birth on December 25, we have St. John Chrysostom telling us, in his Homily for this Feast, that the Western Churches had, from the very commencement of Christianity, kept it on this day. He is not satisfied with merely mentioning the tradition; he undertakes to show that it is well founded, inasmuch as the Church of Rome had every means of knowing the true day of our Saviour’s Birth, since the acts of the Enrollment, taken in Judea by command of Augustus, were kept in the public archives of Rome. The holy Doctor adduces a second argument, which he founds upon the Gospel of St. Luke, and he reasons thus: we know from the sacred Scriptures that it must have been in the fast of the seventh month [note: Leviticus 23:24 and following verses. The seventh month (or Tisri) corresponded to the end of our September and beginning of our October] that the Priest Zachary had the vision in the Temple; after which Elizabeth, his wife, conceived St. John the Baptist: hence it follows that the Blessed Virgin having, as the Evangelist St. Luke relates, received the Angel Gabriel’s visit, and conceived the Saviour of the world in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, that is to say, in March, the Birth of Jesus must have taken place in the month of December.
But it was not till the fourth century that the Churches of the East began to keep the Feast of our Saviour’s Birth in the month of December. Up to that period they had kept it at one time on the sixty of January, thus uniting it, under the generic term of Epiphany, with the Manifestation of our Saviour made to the Magi, and in them to the Gentiles; at another time, as Clement of Alexandria tells us, they kept in on the 25th of the month Pachon (May 15), or on the 25th of the month Pharmuth (April 20). St. John Chrysostom, in the Homily we have just cited, which he gave in 386, tells us that the Roman custom of celebrating the Birth of our Saviour on December 25 had then only been observed ten years in the Church of Antioch. It is probable that this change had been introduced in obedience to the wishes of the Apostolic See, wishes which received additional weight by the edict of the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, which appeared towards the close of the fourth century, and decreed that the Nativity and Epiphany of our Lord should be made two distinct Festivals. The only Church that has maintained the custom of celebrating the two mysteries on January 6 is that of Armenia; owing, no doubt, to the circumstance of that country not being under the authority of the Emperors; as also because it was withdrawn at an early period from the influence of Rome by schism and heresy.
The Feast of Our Lady’s Purification, with which the forty days of Christmas close, is, in the Latin Church, of very great antiquity; so ancient, indeed, as to preclude the possibility of our fixing the date of its institution. According to the unanimous opinion of liturgists, it is the most ancient of all the Feasts of the Holy Mother of God; and as her Purification is related in the Gospel itself, they rightly infer that its anniversary was solemnized at the very commencement of Christianity. Of course, this is only to be understood of the Roman Church; for as regards the Oriental Church, we find that this Feast was not definitely fixed to February 2 until the reign of the Emperor Justinian, in the sixth century. It is true that the Eastern Christians had previously to that time a sort of commemoration of this Mystery, but it was far from being a universal custom, and it was kept a few days after the Feast of our Lord’s Nativity, and not on the day itself of Mary’s going up to the Temple.
But what is the characteristic of Christmas in the Latin liturgy? It is twofold: it is joy, which the whole Church feels at the coming of the divine Word in the Flesh; and it is admiration of that glorious Virgin, who was made the Mother of God. There is scarcely a prayer, or a rite, in the liturgy of this glad season, which does not imply these two grand Mysteries: an Infant-God, and a Virgin-Mother.
For example, on all Sundays and Feasts which are not Doubles, the Church, throughout these forty days, makes a commemoration of the fruitful virginity of the Mother of God, by three special prayers in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. She begs the suffrage of Mary by proclaiming her quality of Mother of God and her inviolate purity, which remained in her even after she had given birth to her Son. And again the magnificent anthem, Alma Redemptoris, composed by the Monk Herman Contractus, continues, up to the very day of the Purification, to be the termination of each Canonical Hour. It is by such manifestations of her love and veneration that the Church, honouring the Son in the Mother, testifies her holy joy during this season of the Liturgical Year, which we call Christmas.
Our readers are aware that, when Easter Sunday falls at its latest—that is, in April—the ecclesiastical calendar counts as many as six Sundays after the Epiphany. Christmastide (that is, the forty days between Christmas Day and the Purification) includes sometimes four out of these six Sundays; frequently only two; and sometimes only one, as in the case when Easter comes so early as to necessitate keeping Septuagesima, and even Sexagesima Sunday, in January. Still, nothing is changed, as we have already said, in the ritual observances of this joyous season, excepting only that on those two Sundays, the fore-runners of Lent, the vestments are purple, and the Gloria in excelsis is omitted.
Although our holy Mother the Church honours with especial devotion the Mystery of the Divine Infancy during the whole season of Christmas; yet, she is obliged to introduce into the liturgy of this same season passages from the holy Gospels which seem premature, inasmuch as they relate to the active life of Jesus. This is owing to there being less than six months allotted by the calendar for the celebration of the entire work of our Redemption: in other words, Christmas and Easter are so near each other, even when Easter is as late as it can be, that Mysteries must of necessity be crowded into the interval; and this entails anticipation. And yet the liturgy never tires in their praises, during the whole period from the Nativity to the day when Mary comes to the Temple to present her Jesus.
The Greeks, too, make frequent commemorations of the Maternity of Mary in their Offices of this season: but they have a special veneration for the twelve days between Christmas Day and the Epiphany, which, in their liturgy, are called the Dodecameron. During this time they observe no days of abstinence from flesh-meat; and the Emperors of the East had, out of respect for the great mystery, decreed that no servile work should be done, and that the courts of law should be closed, until after January 6.
From this outline of the history of the holy season, we can understand what is the characteristic of this second portion of the Liturgical Year, which we call Christmas, and which has ever been a season most dear to the Christian world.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 am
Greetings Christopher,
Well thank you for these attempts of putting Jesus into Christmas, but there are just no facts to it. December 25th being the Birthday of Mithra however is a fact. There is no record of a December 25th celebration of the birth of Christ earlier than 336. A December 25th birthday for Jesus was not discussed or practiced by any first or 2nd Century Christian writer.
I will get into your Scripture on the Lords Day soon. I did not forget it. Hopefully this weekend.
You State above: You err. Laodicea was condemning the Judaizing as the Bible also condemned Judaizing. Also, you use the so called gospel q as a source. That is a figment of some psuedo intellectuals that doubt the authenticity of the synoptic Gospels. Also, you claim that the Gospel of John is gnostic, which is laughable.
Laodicea, condemned the practice of a Saturday rest and made it a Heresy. As to the rest of your comment, I am quoting from wilkipedia regarding the early camp dating on the Gospel of Thomas. Argue with them, I am not claiming anything here.
Cheers
Terry
January 13th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Greetings Christopher,
I wanted to get back to you on your scripture as I mentioned before. I would cover some of your Christian writers, on the Lords day but most are 3rd century. The earlier ones are in dispute re Sunday as the Lords day. Further I have already conceded that the Sunday “Lords Day”was practiced by some early groups.
So at this point lets examine the scripture on this;
You state: Isaiah 1:13 - God begins to reveal His displeasure with the Sabbath.
Well this begins by discussing animal sacrifices. Read Matthew 12:6-8 because Jesus discusses this.
6 I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
You State: Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus’ resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.
Well brother, I have to say that is a stretch of scripture to conclude that based on these passages.
Acts 20:7 - This text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the “first day of the week.” Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.
Well this is actually what it says:
6And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. 7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Your conclusions are not supported here. No mention of Sunday being the Sabbath here, just that they got together to break bread, (Supper????)
1 Cor. 16:2 - Paul instructs the Corinthians to make contributions to the churches “on the first day of the week,” which is Sunday. This is because the primary day of Christian worship is Sunday.
Well this is what it says:
1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
Sorry no gatherings here. Your conclusions are not demonstrated here. What were the collections for the Saints???? The Christians in Palestine, from various causes, suffered from poverty. Paul awakened an interest in them among the Gentile churches, and made pecuniary collections in their behalf (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:25, 26; 1 Cor. 16:1-3; 2 Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:10). Note the Churches in Palestine practiced the 7th day Sabbath.
Col. 2:16-17 - Paul teaches that the Sabbath was only a shadow of what was fulfilled in Christ, and says “let no one pass judgment any more over a Sabbath.”
Well, there are those who feel that the Holy Days of God, commanded by Jesus Christ for His people, are all done away by one Scripture in Col. 2:16-17. It is time we asked ourselves a simple question. What do these two verses really say? “Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body (is) of Christ.”
Notice it says “Let no man Judge you” so it would seem these Christians were being judged by others for practicing the Sabbath. Again your conclusions are unsupported.
You State: 2 Thess. 2:15 - we are to hold fast to apostolic tradition, whether it is oral or written. The 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church is that the apostles changed the Sabbath day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.
Well I have still seen no writings of an Apostle where the Sabbath was Changed from Saturday to Sunday.
You State: Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of “another day,” which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord’s resurrection, which was on Sunday.
Well you forget Hebrew 4:10-11 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. 11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
What was the day of Gods Rest? It was the 7th day Sabbath.
You State: Heb. 7:12 - when there is a change in the priesthood, there is a change in the law as well. Because we have a new Priest and a new sacrifice, we also have a new day of worship, which is Sunday.
Well it only says “ For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
This says nothing about the change of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. Sorry it is not there and your conclusion is not supported.
You State: Rev 1:10 - John specifically points out that he witnesses the heavenly Eucharistic liturgy on Sunday, the Lord’s day, the new day of rest in Christ.
Well I have discussed this before above. Sorry no Sunday Sabbath here.
You State: Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Since the resurrection, Mass has been principally celebrated on Sunday.
Well which Church are we talking about here? Is it the one under James the Just who practiced the 7th day Sabbath, or the Church that declared them Heretics?
I wish you well
Cheers
Terry
January 13th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Dear Christopher,
Oh I wanted to post a link to a site where all references to the sabbath in the bible are listed, http://www.sabbathchallenge.org/sabbathtext.html.
This is based on The Holy Bible: New International Version.(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
You can look them up in whatever version you like.
The last one posted is from Hebrews 4:9-10 and is translated thus:
9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his.
Notice this states a Sabbath-rest
Again Cheers
Your ball
February 9th, 2008 at 4:18 am
I thought a qoute by Thomas Paine would be a nice addition here.
“The Christian Religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun.”
Thomas Paine
Cheers
Terry
February 16th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
To Brother Christopher and all.
It has been over a month since we have had a responce from Brother Christopher. I will assume this debate is over and I welcome an open discussion on any other topics at this point.
Cheers
Terry
February 18th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Howdy, I have been off shore for a while. I will be going through your post asap. God bless.
Christopher
June 19th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Yep - I would agree with that.. Thanks for the line.
June 20th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Found your blog on yahoo - thanks for the article but i still don’t get it.
June 20th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Hi Max,
Thanks for joining in. The website and the film looks at the Holy Oil as described in 30:23. This discussion discusses the change of the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday which they call the day of the Lord. To understand this you would need to understand everything discussed above.
To Geoff: Thanks for joining in.
Cheers
Brother Terry
July 12th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Excuse me on my last comment. I omitted exodus where I state 30:23
Cheers
Brother Terry
July 27th, 2008 at 6:59 am
ברוך אתה יהוה אלוהינו מלך העולם בורא פרי קנה־בשם העץ חיים
Blessed are you who are God, sovereign of the universe and creator of cannabis the tree of life.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Louv Brother Michael,
!אבר המש אהי ,ןמאָ
Omeyn, yehey shmey rabo!
Amen, let Goud’s great name be blessed!
One louv,
Joshua
August 1st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
אָמן, יהא שמה רבא!
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:24 am
Slight improvement. “Peri” should be “perach”.
Feel free to copy and use this blessing anywhere you should.
ברוך אתה יהוה אלוהינו מלך העולם בורא פרח קנה־בשם העץ חיים
Blessed are you who are God sovereign of the universe who makes cannabis the tree of life