Posted on 01/08/2008 8:47:38 AM PST by DouglasKC
The Council of Laodicea
by DouglasKC
When examining some of the doctrines that the church of God holds, we should understand how and why traditional Christianity has veered away from these doctrines which we hold to be biblical and truthful.
In most cases this departure from the truth wasn't a sudden thing. Rather, it was a slow “evolution” of religious thought caused by subtle changes in culture, society or the traditional church. Because it was such a slow process these changes can sometimes be hard to pinpoint.
But there are tools we can use to track and study these changes.
Some of the tools we can use are of course the bible and associated reference works such as concordances and dictionaries. Another tool we can use is history. Sometimes the writings of what the traditional church calls “church fathers” can give us glimpses into the state of Christianity at the time of their writing. But there are also a number of writings having to do with early church meetings, or councils. Just as our church has “councils”...or a gathering of elders to decide issues, so too did the early Roman Catholic church.
One such church meeting occurred approximately three hundred and thirty years after the death of Christ, around the year 360 AD. At that time representatives from approximately thirty churches in Asia Minor, an area where approximately modern Turkey lies today, met to decide issues important to the church. This probably included some of the churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 such as Ephesus and the Laodicean church. In fact, this meeting was held in Laodicea and so is known in history as the Council of Laodicea.
Three hundred and thirty years AFTER the death of Christ they met. Let me put three hundred and thirty years into perspective. Three hundred and thirty years ago today it was the year 1677. It was only about thirty years after the end of the protestant reformation, the great split from the Roman Catholic church from which many of the modern day Protestant churches trace their roots America as a nation would not exist for over a hundred years more. Three hundred and thirty years ago it was a VERY different world.
And three hundred and thirty years years after the death of Christ it was also a very different world. Forty years earlier Christianity had officially decided not to observe Passover. Christianity itself had only become legal in the Roman empire approximately fifty years earlier. Due to Jewish revolts against Rome and the perception that Jews had killed Christ anti-Jewish attitudes and prejudice were common.
So what is important about the council of Laodicea? It's important because this is a historical document, an historical event, that we can point to and see where the 7th day Sabbath rest was officially banned.
Because out of the council of Laodecea there came sixty resolutions, or canons, that the churches agreed to abide by.
One of these was canon number twenty-nine. It reads:
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.
I want to break this down into sections, beginning with the first section:
“CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day.”
That's an amazing statement considering the following scripture:
Exd 20:8-10: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.
So the consensus reached at Laodicea was in direct contradiction to the word of God, one of the ten commandments. God tells us to rest on his sabbath. Man tells us to work.
Now some may say that this is only prohibiting “resting” as Pharasitical Jews do...with all the rules and regulations of sabbath observance that were burdensome and unscriptural. But that notion is disproved by the next section:
“rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians.”
Instead Christians are told that they MUST honor the Lord's day, Sunday, by resting if they can INSTEAD of resting on the sabbath. If the issue was HOW they rested, then resting as “Christians” on the sabbath should have been allowed. But it wasn't. Sunday became the “official” day of rest.
“But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.”
Notice that if anyone DOES observe the biblical sabbath then they are classified as Judaizers and “anathema” from Christ. Just what does “anathema” mean? Here's a pretty good definition when used in a religious sense:
Anathema: (Gr.: a curse, suspension). The spiritual suspension with which the church may expel a person from her community for various reasons, especially denial of the faith or other mortal sins. The church also may proclaim an anathema against the enemies of the faith, such as heretics and traitors.
So if you wanted to observe the biblical sabbath rest, you were basically kicked out of the “church”. You were considered a heretic and a Judaizer.
There were a couple of other canons that came out of this council that are interesting in the information they convey:
Canon 16 - THE Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday], with the other Scriptures
This is interesting because even though Christians were told to work on the sabbath, it was apparently still considered appropriate to hold some type of church service or at LEAST to read the scriptures.
Canon 49 - DURING Lent the Bread must not be offered except on the Sabbath Day and on the Lord's Day only.
Again it would seem okay to include the sabbath as a religious observance. Some scholars believe this was because it was considered appropriate in the church at this time to celebrate Saturday as a “feast of creation”, a remembrance of the creation.
So what can we conclude? If we can read between the lines there's some good information that can be gleaned from these canons.
First, this proves that three hundred and thirty years, over three centuries, after the death of Christ that many Christians STILL observed the 7th day sabbath rest. If they did not, there would have been no need to make a rule prohibiting it. So it certainly wasn't normal in biblical times to observe a Sunday “rest” as some traditions would tell us.
Second, Christians who believed in observing God's sabbath rest were NOT considered “Christians” after this point of time. The Church of God begins to drop out of “official” church history. The official Christian church caused the church of God to become outlaws. Outside of the mainstream. Heretics. Not much has changed has it?
Third, the traditional church recognized THE sabbath of God as THE SABBATH. They carefully differentiated it from Sunday, the Lord's day. They didn't call Sunday “the sabbath”.
And last, it seemed that it was normal to at least perform some type of worship on the sabbath. Or at least it was normal to go to religious observances on both Sunday and the Sabbath.
I want to close with a quote from Michael Crichton in his book “Timeline”. It reads:
“If you don't know history, you don't know anything. You're like a leaf that doesn't know it's part of a tree.”
It is vitally important to have a knowledge of history. It is instrumental for deepening our faith, defending the church and for bringing others to the truth.
Here you go....
Bump for later read
Later all Roman Emperors held the title Pontifex Maximus. Emperor Constantine held the title from 306 to 337 AD Constantine convened the Nicene Council in 325 AD and issued this edict: ON THE KEEPING OF EASTER. From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.
from DOCUMENTS FROM THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICEA [THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL] A.D. 325 Emperor Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire He had issued an Edict making Sunday the day of rest In 321 CE, while a Pagan sun-worshiper, the Emperor Constantine
They ruled: "Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday, but shall work on that day." The Roman Office of the Pontifex Maximus began in 712 BC
b'shem Yah'shua
(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18-20.) When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was
universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the
feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable,
than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of
immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same
manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the
Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and
whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,(1) we may
transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter,
which we have observed from the time of the Saviour's Passion to the
present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour
has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and
more convenient course(the order of the days of the week); and
consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest
brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the
Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without
their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the
right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led
by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They
do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness
and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two
passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly
in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most
certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one
year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still
be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such
wicked people[the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an
important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought
not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of
our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired[to
establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is,
that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated
at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts,
whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine
Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a
uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on
the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the
murderers of our Lord; and as, on the other, the custom now followed
by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it
has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent,
that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa,
in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the
dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only
that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but
also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we
should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few
words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the
most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one
and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there
should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully
the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes
place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding
from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been
decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we
can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted
me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together,
seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for
destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace,
and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my
beloved brethren.
This is the Decree from the first Pontiff of the Roman church to all the world.
declared that Sunday was to be a day of rest throughout the Roman Empire: "On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest,
Council of Laodicea circa 364 CE ordered that religious observances were
and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture
may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day
is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment
for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."
to be conducted on Sunday, not Saturday. Sunday became the new Sabbath.
In most places and languages "Easter" isn't called Easter but "Pascha," which means "Passover." Even in English-speaking countries, the candle used at Easter time isn't called an "Easter candle" but a "Paschal candle."
And as much as you like to claim it, Constantine wasn't the first pope.
You’re attempting to reason with a member of one of the offshoots of the Herbert W. Armstrong / Worldwide Church of God cult. Save your breath.
LOL! The pseudo-history of this thread is so bad that is just deserves to be laughed at.
In most places and languages "Easter" isn't called Easter but "Pascha," which means "Passover." Even in English-speaking countries, the candle used at Easter time isn't called an "Easter candle" but a "Paschal candle."
And as much as you like to claim it, Constantine wasn't the first pope. 5 posted on 01/08/2008 10:22:16 AM MST by Pyro7480
Don't be mislead; Passover has nothing to do with Pascha I never stated that Constantine was a Pope. I prayerfully recommend a remedial reading course. The History is there for all to read.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
and is not celebrated at the same time
Ah, I had forgotten that detail, which was brought up on a past thread. Thanks! The most charitable thing I can say about that system and its offshoots is that they’re... odd.
This completely false.
This is completely false.
I think Matchett-PI was referring to DouglasKC, not you Xenia.
I think you missed the point of Xeniast post. It was intended to show that traditional Christianity, because of anti-antisemitism, distanced itself from things they considered "Jewish". Instead of observing the biblically mandated Passover at the biblically mandated time the church instituted a DIFFERENT festival on a different date. Whether it's called "Easter" or "Pascha" makes little difference. The point is that it's NOT the Passover commanded by Jesus Christ in the bible:
Lev 23:4 These are the feasts of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons.
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Lev 23:6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
The Lord's Passover is the 14th day of Nisan. Man's Easter is when man commands, not God.
Traditional Christianity DID stop observing the Lord's holy days, including the 7th day sabbath. The council of Nicea marks an "official departure" from observing Passover when God said to observe it. The council of Laodicea marks an "official" departure from observing the 7th day sabbath rest when God said to observe it.
Man's Easter is when man commands, not God.
Amen !
It’s difficult to dialog with restorationist types (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, Campbellites, modern “messianic Jews”) because they have no historical frame of reference. In large part they deny the validity of the ecumenical creeds, and thus refuse to accept the orthodoxy that has been a hallmark of the universal church.
They are thus free to reinterpret history to support their restorationist theories, which are way outside of the mainstream of Christian theology for the most part.
She (Matchett-PI) probably means that human reasoning won't make a good argument in this thread. In order to engage in a conversation on this topic you should lean heavily on scripture and history and not on human reasoning. :-)
I attend services though with United Church of God.
Here are some excerpts from A Brief History of United Church of God:
The United Church of God, today active with congregations in more than 40 countries, began as a formal assembly in 1995. Doctrinal distinctives of the Church include the observance of a seventh-day Sabbath, a modern application of the ancient Hebrew Holy Day seasons (which Jesus also kept and which the Church believes are a literal representation of God's plan for humanity) and a firm belief that Jesus Christ will return to earth to institute a benevolent, world-encircling Kingdom of God.
As authoritative historical records clearly show, a number of extra-biblical practices entered the early church within a century after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Recognizing that fact, the United Church of God strives to directly mirror the beliefs and practices of the first-century teachings of Jesus and the original apostles. This leads the Church to choose not to participate in common worship practices that were added without biblical mandate, including the observance of Christmas and Easter.
Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.
Concerned with uneven administrative practices of the former assembly, more than 100 ordained ministers developed a new administrative structure that was more directly accountable to members and the ministry. A new 12-person Council of Elders, elected by a general assembly of all ordained ministers in United, was tasked with reviewing and independently documenting all core beliefs and doctrines of the Church, which above all must be true to the biblical record and not reliant on later divisive philosophical and theological traditions that were developed centuries after the original apostles. That task has been largely completed, and the Church's formal Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is published for all to see on its Web site: www.ucg.org/about/fundamentalbeliefs.htm.
It must be very difficult since nobody is really wanting to deal with the substance of the post.
You are correct though in that there's not to much to discuss when "orthodoxy" goes against what the bible teaches. We all have a choice whether we want to practice what the bible teaches or what tradition teaches.
“The most charitable thing I can say about that system and its offshoots is that they’re... odd.” ~ Pyro7480
“Odd”??? Wow! That IS charitable.
Here’s a post made by an ex-member of one of the H.W. Armstrong / World Wide Church of God Cult off-shoots (which can be found all over the internet), he wrote:
“I watched a documentary on A & E Sunday evening called “Mind Control”.
It was about the House of Yahweh in Texas put on by Rick Ross. Can I ever identify with it since Yisrayl Hawkins was a former member of the World Wide Church of God based in Big Sandy, Texas.
Did anyone else see it? It was terrific. It really uncovered a lot of what we discuss here about how that type of mind control works. I’m so glad and thankful for Rick to bring this out. The word is getting out how destructive this kind of church can be and the methods they use to entrap and enslave people.
The House of Yahweh &Yisrayl Hawkins,
http://www.rickross.com/groups/yahweh.html
Re: Mind Control Documentary - Rick Ross 01-02-2008, 06:56 PM
Yisrayl Hawkins’ “right hand man” Yedidiyah Hawkins, was arrested on child molestation charges, in October 2007. (against his step-daughter, whom he claims he was preparing to marry. She was 8 yrs old when this started, and she is now 14. For 6 years, he hurt this child!) He was indicted on that charge, and he was also charged with 2 counts of aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child and 1 count of organized criminal activity. His bail has been set at 1.8 MILLION dollars! The entire “leadership” of the House of Yahweh is now being investigated by the FBI (and “other” law enforcement agencies which cannot be disclosed at this time).
The locals here, are very concerned that HOY will end up like Waco, or that Yisrayl Hawkins will be another Jim Jones, as he has gotten his “faithful” to come into agreement with him that they would rather DIE than leave the HOY. He has them convinced, that if they leave, they lose their salvation.
Please pray for these people, that they will “see the light” and get out before it’s too late. Also, pray for the ones who have already left!
There are some, who want to leave, but they have no means to support themselves on the “outside”. Yisrayl Hawkins makes them give THREE Tithes. These people are forced to live in poverty! The children don’t attend school...they work in the kitchen! The women are not allowed to talk to other women, or even to go to the store alone! Their “head” (husband) must give them permission to do everything. When a man wants to marry, he HAS to PAY Yisrayl Hawkins for a wife. (Brides Price). Most of the “followers” have changed their name to Hawkins, in honor of him.
It’s hard to believe that this man has so much control over these people. I come in contact with members on a daily basis, as I work here in the community. You can tell who they are, by the way they dress, and the latex gloves on their hands. The women are very nice and polite..and “some” will speak, but not many. One lady told me that she would get into “trouble” for talking to me!! It’s such a shame to see them like that. My heart goes out to those poor women and children. The men are allowed multiple wives, because Yisrayl Hawkins has told them that a “single” woman can not enter the Kingdom!!
I ask everyone who reads this, to PRAY, PRAY, PRAY for these people. And pray for the child who was molested, and ALL of the innocent children in the HOY. Pray that justice will be served, and those EVIL ones will be punished.
Those are some of the fruits of Armstrongism. Sad, very, very sad.”
Here’s more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_sitesearch=rickross.com&safe=off&q=united+church+of+God
It’s difficult to dialog with restorationist types (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, Campbellites, modern “messianic Jews”) because they have no historical frame of reference. In large part they deny the validity of the ecumenical creeds, and thus refuse to accept the orthodoxy that has been a hallmark of the universal church.
They are thus free to reinterpret history to support their restorationist theories, which are way outside of the mainstream of Christian theology for the most part.
14 posted on 01/08/2008 11:04:56 AM MST by topcat54
b'SHEM Yahshua
Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and
the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter
through it.
Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life,
and there are few who find it.
Matthew 7:15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
The beliefs of United (and my belief) on the holy spirit is stated here from Fundamental Beliefs:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of God and of Christ Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the power of God and the Spirit of life eternal (2 Timothy 1:7; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:1-4; Colossians 1:16).
The early church certainly didn't regard the holy spirit as a separate person in the Godhead other than the God the father and Christ. In fact, this teaching didn't become part of "official" tradition of the church until the council of Constantinople in 381 AD.
The bible is abundantly clear that the picture of the beings in the Godhead are the father and son:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God
A picture of the Godhead. No being called "the holy spirit" is present.
Dan 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
A vision from the old testament matches up with the new testament. Again no holy spirit there.
Again:
Rev 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
The throne of God and the lamb. No throne for the holy spirit.
Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
No crown or throne for the holy spirit.
Now don't get me wrong. The holy spirit is a wonderful thing. A vital thing. It's the presence of God in our universe. It's his active working, his active presence. But it's not a mythical "3rd" person in the Godhead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.