Posted on 07/08/2006 6:41:47 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Very true. I find it telling that so much corruption was evident even in biblical times.
How about this: The Disagreement in Asia.
Jesus kept the Passover; The Apostles kept the Passover; Paul kept the Passover; John, the last living Apostle taught his Disciples to keep the Passover(lines 2,3 and 4).
All of a sudden Rome is saying the Passover is "Kaput"! Easter is the "Real Deal"? Everyone knows where Easter came from....right down the Babylonian Boulevard.
"Everyone" knows no such thing.
As Eusebius says, the disciples of John followed the Quartodeciman observance of celebrating Easter on Passover. But they were the only ones who did so. The rest of the Roman world around 150 A.D. or so was keeping the feast of Easter on Sunday. Also, it's not like one group was keeping the Jewish feast, while the other was the Christian. They were *both* keeping the Christian feast of Easter, just on different days.
Moreover, even if you were right that the Quartodeciman observance was the original one, note very carefully that Irenaeus (whom Eusebius quotes) says that this difference was not a matter of one branch apostasizing into paganism, but of two competing traditions, over which the Churches agreed to disagree:
"For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night. 13. 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.”...If you are right that the Easter observers apostasized, then tell me, exactly why did the observers of Passover agree to stay in communion with the corrupted pagan Babylonians?16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. 17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”
1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s passover.1687 It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.
Here's the note for 1687:
The great question of dispute between the church of Asia Minor and the rest of Christendom was whether the paschal communion should be celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan, or on the Sunday of the resurrection festival, without regard to Jewish chronology. The Christians of Asia Minor, appealing to the example of the apostles, John and Philip, and to the uniform practice of the Church, celebrated the Christian passover always on the fourteenth of Nisan, whatever day of the week that might be, by a solemn fast, and closed the day with the communion in commemoration of the last paschal supper of Christ.
Note that there IS such a thing as a "Christian Passover" (not a Jewish Passover), it was celebrated by the apostles John and Philip ON the day that God commanded Passover to be celebrated.
Lev 23:5 In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD's passover.
Next:
The Roman church, on the other hand, followed by all the rest of Christendom, celebrated the death of Christ always on Friday, and his resurrection on the Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, and continued their paschal fast until the latter day. It thus happened that the fast of the Asiatic Christians, terminating, as it did, with the fourteenth of Nisan, often closed some days before the fast of the other churches, and the lack of uniformity occasioned great scandal. As Schaff says: “The gist of the paschal controversy was whether the Jewish paschal day (be it a Friday or not) or the Christian Sunday should control the idea and time of the entire festival.” The former practice emphasized Christ’s death; the latter his resurrection.
Now this last point is important. Emphasized his death:
1Co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
No doubt this ONLY occurred on Passsover, to emphasize his death.
Now it should be clear from these statements that the Roman church was practicing something CONTRARY to what God commanded and to what the original disciples practiced.
Moreover, even if you were right that the Quartodeciman observance was the original one, note very carefully that Irenaeus (whom Eusebius quotes) says that this difference was not a matter of one branch apostasizing into paganism, but of two competing traditions, over which the Churches agreed to disagree:
If you are right that the Easter observers apostasized, then tell me, exactly why did the observers of Passover agree to stay in communion with the corrupted pagan Babylonians?
103 posted on 07/11/2006 6:49:13 AM MDT by Claud
Lev 23:5 'In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight is the LORD'S Passover. Lev 23:6 'Then on the fifteenth day of the same month there is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the LORD; for seven days you shall eat unleavened bread.The Quartodeciman observance was the original one.
b'shem Y'shua
Quartodecimanism ("fourteenism", derived from Latin) refers to the practice of fixing the celebration of Passover for Christians on the fourteenth day of Nisan in the Old Testament's Hebrew Calendar (for example Lev 23:5, in Latin "quarta decima"). This was the original method of fixing the date of the Passover, which is to be a "perpetual ordinance"[1].
See the Holy Word of G-d Lev 23:4 'These are the appointed times of the LORD, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at the times appointed for them.
It is not clear at all. As Eusebius makes clear, it wasn't just the "Roman" church. Only the Johannines in Asia Minor were Quartodeciman; the whole rest of the world was on Sunday.
And my question to Diego stands, if this was such an apostate practice, why did the Johannines not *refuse* Communion with the Roman Church? If Easter Sunday is apostasy, then the disciples of John were gladly keeping company with apostates.
Do you know something they do not?
However, what we should be careful about saying is that the Roman practice was evidence of apostasy and/or defiance of the OT ordinances. As Eusebius makes explicitly clear, the people who kept the Passover date nevertheless kept communion with everyone else and did not condemn them for their beliefs. They agreed to disagree and did not consider the other side to be apostates.
One can have one's own preference, but by condemning the Sunday Easter as apostasy, one departs drastically from the actual practice of the Johannine Quartodecimans.
You know....I don't think the early Church, once it came to understand the mission, wanted to excommunicate anyone. I think that developed later as a "Scare Tactic", but not in the Churches of the East.
There is nothing Biblical....or Christian about Easter. On the other hand, Passover is Biblical....being celebrated in both Testaments.....by the people of God.
Well, excommunication actually goes back to the beginning; we see the essentials in Matthew 18:17 for example: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican"
There is nothing Biblical....or Christian about Easter. On the other hand, Passover is Biblical
Hmmm... we are apparently not on the same plane in terms of what we each mean by "Easter", so let me ask you this. What is it you, specifically, find objectionable about the feast? Aside from the Sunday/Passover date that is, which we've already covered. Just what do those Christians that celebrate Easter do that is objectionable?
That's the whole point. The original church of God celebrated a Christian Passover on Nisan 14 according to God's commandment and the example of Christ. Shortly thereafter, corruption began to creep in. I don't know what form of relations took forth between the two but the issue itself caused a HUGE (or HUGH in freepspeak) controversy that it still talked about and studied to this day. Those who apostasized would have done well to heed Paul's advice:
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
They celebrate an event (with no Biblical authority) that has taken the place of a "Festival of The Lord" that He established to be celebrated forever in all our generations.
You are making an assumption for which there is scant historical evidence one way or another. How do you *know* that the "original church" universally celebrated Passover always on Nisan 14 as the Jews did. We know that in the 150s or so, John's disciples did, and we know that Romans and everybody else did not. We don't know what the situation was in Rome previous to that--the Sunday feast may well go back to Peter. There isn't evidence one way or the other.
And yes, it caused a HUGH controversy, but the Quartodecimans did *not* call the Romans apostates or corrupters of Apostolic tradition. So I'm still not clear why *we* should call them that.
There significant biblical and historical evidence that the early church kept God's feast days, including Passover.
1. The only "official" scriputures they had were the books of the old testament. These books commanded them to observe the days God created, as they had been for centuries.
2. There is no indication that the incarnate Jesus Christ ever taught that observation of God's holy days, including Passover, were not to be done. In fact, Jesus Christ himself observed the days.
3. There is no indication in the new testatment that the early church stopped observing, or understood, that these holy days were not to be observed. To the contrary, there are numerous references to God's holy days, including Passover, in the new testament.
4. There is no controversy chronicled in the new testament having to do with changing the observance of these holy days. In contrast, the decision about whether or not gentiles were to be circumcised caused a (HUGH) controversy that was recorded and required a church council to decide. No such thing was done about whether to observe the days that God created holy and told his children to observe.
Putting all these together, it's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that yes indeed, the early church did celebrate God's holy days, including Passover, and that later on this was changed.
Correct. As Jews, they would probably have celebrated the Passover on 14 Nisan. Christ never (that we know) taught otherwise. And there is no evidence that the Church caused these days not to be observed
But the Christian feast of Easter *is* Passover, only perfected and fulfilled. In Latin and Greek, the name for Easter is Pascha, from Hebrew Pesach. Despite the English derivation of the word, the feast itself was no pagan holiday; the Church (the Apostles?) simply moved the Jewish feast to a Sunday.
God established the cannon of scripture, the church, (small c) recognized it.
Just because you discover something does not mean you empowered it in anyway.
-Oh look I found a Bottle with a Geni in it. I declair it has power only because I found it.- ???
And how, pray, does the feast of Easter *not* keep that event?
Are you a Messianic Jew? I ask because it will influence how I respond to your statements.
Im sorry for you who can only be a staint by declairation of your sect.
I have been a declaired a Priest, a Prince, and an Ambasodor by God my Father, and Jesus My Brother.
Jesus made me DECLOS. Righteous, beyound my comprehension.
Jesus made me powerful in His blood with His Authority in heavenly places.
I am so glad that there are some Christians in the Catholic Church. I encourage them to step forward boldly and take spiritual authority over the evil spirits in their midst and bind them as Jesus taught.
To deal with the rest of the spirit of your post.
The RCC does not recognize the strong and powerful works of Christians that have been out side Catholosism for 2000 years.
History does not make a Christian. Jesus does.
After you have thrown the engine out of the car; who long do you praise those people that buy that car and just sit in it?
But nevertheless the Church (large "C") had to declare what was "in" and what was "out". And did so.
But the Protestants have declared that some things were "out" after the fact -- coincidentally, those books of scripture that contradict such matters as prayers for the dead, etc. Luther wanted to throw out the letter of James as well, IIRC, but decided against it.
So who correctly recognized what God established, and by what authority? If you respond that "the Holy Spirit" told MY authority that IT was right -- anybody can claim that (including those loons in the Episcopal church), and what makes one person's claim any more valid than anothers?)
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.