Posted on 04/28/2006 6:35:21 PM PDT by DouglasKC
You forgot the Ketchup! LOL
Does She go to the right of the NRA sticker....or the left? What did NRA mean again?
I knew that....really, I did!
Ahh, no, no no. Hold on a second. Aaron didn't mix worship of the true God with pagan symbols and imagery...he mixed worship of the true God with pagan WORSHIP. Very different thing.
As Diego pointed out, there is ample evidence of these customs being inaugerated into early traditional Christianity. It's no secret that traditional Christianity grew by attracting pagans through taking pagan customs and incorporating them into the worship of God.
You're right it is no secret. Though I might rather say that traditional Christianity understood it could not grow if it held to a narrow Judaizing view in which the Gentile races were forced to become Jewish along with becoming Christian. But the claim that such importation of incidental customs--none of which, I might add, touched upon the doctrine of the faith--added up to an "apostasy" is, as I said before, a monstrous and disgusting lie.
Judaism was for the Jews. It was a not a religion for the world. Ask an orthodox rabbi today whether the Gentiles are required to live the law of Moses, and he'll tell you that we are most certainly not. Only the Noahide laws; not the Mosaic ones, which are binding on Israel alone.
When Christ came in the flesh, he fulfilled Judaism for the Jews, but at the same time, he opened it up to all races, nations, and peoples. Yet, he did not mandate that all the Gentiles take onto themselves the Mosaic Law. Thus, it was bound to happen that the Gentile nations bring their own way of thinking and living into the Church. Where are Wednesday night Bible studies in the Scriptures? Nowhere. Where are wedding rings in the Bible? Nowhere. But are they bad? Are they impious?
Of course not. They are Gentile customs that were "baptized" into Christianity--and they could be baptized precisely because there was no question of doctrine involved. All of the supposedly pagan things that you are referring to are exactly that--customs around how the faith is lived. The Greeks did it a little different than the Romans, who did it a little different than the Copts, who did it a little different than the Jews & Syrians, who did it a little different than the Ethiopians.
What you call "apostasy" is the Catholic Church expressing the same truths in different ways according to the mores and habits of the Gentile races.
So yes, you can find little piddling things like incense coming to be used gradually in the course of the first 3 centuries. Or titles like "pontifex maximus", etc. etc.
What you can't find is that the Catholic Church of A.D. 400 repudiated the dogmas of the faith that it taught in A.D. 100. *That* is what apostasy is, and no other. If you find your case "easy to prove" it is because you have expanded the definition of apostasy beyond all bounds of semantic elasticity.
How about Polycrates? Here he is in the second century announcing to the world that he, his followers and more importantly....his fore bearers in the faith, always celebrated Passover as Jesus and the Apostles did. They celebrated it on the fourteenth of the month....no matter what day it fell on. This was unlike the pagans who had for years always celebrated their important functions on the "Day of the Sun".
This celebration of Passover was continued on the fourteenth well into the third and fourth centuries by the early church before being outlawed by Constantine and the councils. It is telling that the last living Apostle, John, instructed his followers into the late first century as to the proper observance of Passover and not the pagan Sunday observance later sanctioned by the Church. John, and all the Apostles continued this observance of Passover until they all died.
But St. John's custom was not followed anywhere else in Christendom; not in Rome where St. Peter was, not in Gaul where St. Irenaeus was bishop, and not in Alexandria where St. Mark was. They all celebrated Easter on Sunday. Eusebius discusses this controversy at length in hisHistory of the Church, Book 5 (see chaps 23-24). The Sunday Easter does not seem to be a pagan innovation--by the fact that enjoyed such widespread observance, it was probably very old indeed. Said Irenaeus in his letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, ca. 190 A.D.:
And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith.He goes on to mention that this observance in Rome goes at least back to Xystus' time:
Among these [people who kept the Sunday Easter] were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Plus, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus.Xystus/Sixtus puts us back to about A.D. 115-125. Whether it was observed before that date in Rome is uncertain, but again, the fact that the Sunday Easter was widespread indicates that it had very old roots and may well have been an Apostolic tradition.
Do not be deceived...
_________________________________________________________
Not to worry...but Brown is such a scoundrel...and on top of that a liar.
http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/2005/05/da-vinci-code-long-but-final.html
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. All of the Apostles, including Peter and Paul, celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth of Nisan....as did our Lord and Saviour. There is no Biblical indication or sanction that would allow this Holy date to ever be changed.
As far as Peter observing a Sunday "Easter" celebration....this is indeed unlikely. Peter was an Apostle to the "Circumcised" and as such would never take part in any affair that would lessen the Holy significance of Passover. There is no Biblical proof that Peter even visited Rome and much Biblical proof to indicate he did not.
Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, never speaks of observing anything but the Holy Feast Days of the Lord. You may have tradition in your Church that disputes what I say.... but your tradition is wrong.
For you to believe that "John", on his own, being the last living Apostle and cousin of our Lord, to honor "another" day and teach his disciples "another" tradition, is simply incredible. No, the Passover was always celebrated on the fourteenth and will always be celebrated on the fourteenth.....no matter what your Councils ever said ......or will say.
Christianity is an extension of the promise offered to Israel. Those who believe in Jesus are now adopted children of Abraham.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Jesus' earthly bloodline was of the house of David, and the following exchange indicates that the Gentiles are but dogs looking for scraps:
Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshiped him, saying, Lord, help me. Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Mat 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
And here in acts again:
Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
It looks to me that the Israel, Judah, Hebrew, whatever you want to call them, remained the chosen people even after Jesus' resurrection. At any rate, the Judah and the Israelites lost their chance due to disobedience - a disobedience that more often than not involved mixing worship of the true God with the pagan (adultery). Therefore, how can one assume that such disobedience would ever be tolerated, pre or post Savior?
Now that there is no Jew nor Greek, the following text comes to mind:
Luk 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. Luk 12:48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Which leads me to these words from Paul:
Phi 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
I am mistaken on what basis? Please find for us one historical source for the claim that all the Apostles celebrated the Passover on the 14th of Nissan. The Scriptures do not say it. The historical sources do not say it.
You say Peter "would never" have offered the Easter on Sunday...well, that is an assumption, and I don't think a very good one. Again, the fact that the Sunday Easter was so widespread is not proof of its antiquity, but highly suggestive of it.
Secondly, you are mischaracterizing the evidence I presented as Catholic "tradition". "History" would be more like it. These are not oral tales passed down through centuries and only only codified centuries after the event. We have primary source evidence from the 2nd century that states, flat out, that while in Asia Minor Easter was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, that was not the case elsewhere in the Christian world.
If it was as you say, if everyone observed the feast on the same day prior to Constantine, then why was there an Easter controversy in the 100s at all? Was the whole Quartodeciman controversy fabricated?
There was never any reason to change the date. The fact that the last living Apostle still celebrated Passover as he was instructed as a child, as the Lord instructed him as an adult, and as he instructed those around him.... well into the late first century....speaks volumes.
The only reason the councils give is "Not to appear Jewish". This is not a valid reason as our Lord and Saviour was a "Jew".....as were the Apostles.
You were there?
"Judaizing" Christianity is like rubberizing a tire. Hellenizing Christianity is another story.
But what I am asking you to consider is that perhaps it was never changed at all. History is not totally clear on this point. We only know that around 150-180 the Christian world was divided on this point to the extent that the bishop of Rome was threatening to excommunicate the Quartodecimans.
The fact that the last living Apostle still celebrated Passover as he was instructed as a child, as the Lord instructed him as an adult, and as he instructed those around him.... well into the late first century....speaks volumes.
Oh, I absolutely agree. And so did Polycarp, and Polycrates, and all the Quartodecimans. They come off to me anyway as very sympathetic figures, following the traditions that the great Apostle John left them. But again, they happened to differ on this point from the rest of the Christian world.
The Passover was not a "tradition"....it was one of God's Feast days instituted in Leviticus 23.
But again, they happened to differ on this point from the rest of the Christian world.
Makes you wonder "just what was it" the rest of the Christian world was "smokin", doesn't it?
I believe that as Paul said in the 11th chapter of 2 Corinthians....there were already those at work spreading another gospel. He called them in verse 13, "False Apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as Apostles of Christ. He expounds on this more in Galatians 1:6-9. He even says in Gal. 2:4 that false "Brothers" had infiltrated their ranks. He continues warning of this in Colossians 2:8 and 2 Thessalonians 2:7. He again warns us of the same in 1 Timothy 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:18, and Titus 1:10.
Peter also warns of the same thing in 2 Peter 2:1, 3:16-17.
And John continues in 1 John 2:18, 4:3....and in 2 John 7.
We are also told to watch for infiltration in Jude 4.
When I see that the late first century Church, led by the Apostle John, and the early second century church led by Polycarp, his disciple..... had differing views and celebrated their God in a different manner than (The rest of the Christian World)....I'm not surprised at all. It's in the Book!
However you want to define it, his error was that he mixed pagan worship/traditions/symbols whatever WITH worship of the true God. Pagans worshipped their Gods by carving and erecting idols, icons, of their god. God doesn't want to be worshipped that way which is why he told them not to.
You're right it is no secret. Though I might rather say that traditional Christianity understood it could not grow if it held to a narrow Judaizing view in which the Gentile races were forced to become Jewish along with becoming Christian.
The Judaism at the time of Christ had "evolved" far from what God intended.
Mar 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Mat 15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
But the claim that such importation of incidental customs--none of which, I might add, touched upon the doctrine of the faith--added up to an "apostasy" is, as I said before, a monstrous and disgusting lie.
I would agree if we were discussing "incidental customs"...like ritually washing your arms up to your elbows before eating. But we're talking about commands of God.
Judaism was for the Jews. It was a not a religion for the world. Ask an orthodox rabbi today whether the Gentiles are required to live the law of Moses, and he'll tell you that we are most certainly not. Only the Noahide laws; not the Mosaic ones, which are binding on Israel alone.
Asking an orthox rabbi about the requirements of Christianity isn't going to get you a very accurate answer. The Jewish religion today is composed of the ancestors of those who reject Jesus as the Christ. The bible teaches that gentiles become part of Israel, the Israel of God. Romans 9 and 10 is a good starting point for this.
When Christ came in the flesh, he fulfilled Judaism for the Jews, but at the same time, he opened it up to all races, nations, and peoples. Yet, he did not mandate that all the Gentiles take onto themselves the Mosaic Law
He did not open up "Judaism". As pointed out, he criticized Judaism for straying from what God intended. Judaism did what Christians are doing now...substituting tradition for scripture. Christ did not overturn the law or the scriptures (what we call the "old testament"), he explained them how God intended.
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Of course not. They are Gentile customs that were "baptized" into Christianity--and they could be baptized precisely because there was no question of doctrine involved. All of the supposedly pagan things that you are referring to are exactly that--customs around how the faith is lived. The Greeks did it a little different than the Romans, who did it a little different than the Copts, who did it a little different than the Jews & Syrians, who did it a little different than the Ethiopians.
We are free to worship God however WE wish, not as God wants. That's pretty dangerous ground to be walking on.
What you can't find is that the Catholic Church of A.D. 400 repudiated the dogmas of the faith that it taught in A.D. 100. *That* is what apostasy is, and no other. If you find your case "easy to prove" it is because you have expanded the definition of apostasy beyond all bounds of semantic elasticity.
The truth was being turned away from even at the time of the writing of the new testament, and long before AD 100. It only got worse as time went on. Diego pointed out some of these references in his posts.
LOL...no it doesn't make wonder at all!
Let me ask you this. If St. John was following the authentic practice of the Apostles, and the rest of the Christian world was not, then how come the disciples of St. John "agreed to disagree" on this point with Rome and all of the rest of Christendom? If you are right that Easter on Sunday is evidence of the apostasy, then how come the disciples of St. John didn't fulminate against the Sunday Easter and excommunicate those who followed it?
If it was a false practice, then the disciples of John had a responsibility to condemn it as such. But, as Irenaeus wrote in his letter to Rome; "Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another"
The very people you cite as an authority for the 14 Nisan Easter did *not* condemn the practice of Sunday Easter as followed elsewhere, but kept communion with those who did. Thus, I find it a little odd that you are being more strict on this point than they were.
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.