The Sign of Jonah...HELP!!!

[Mailman]

I think perhaps maybe you defined “Easter” in one of your earlier posts. But there was no separation in the early church between the Pasca and the resurrection. The Church continues to celebrate both events as a unified whole today, just as it has for 2000 years.

That is not what the historical records show – unfortunately.

The church understands Jesus to be the lamb that was slain for our sins. He is our Passover, our sacrifice. In the Passover, the sacrificed Lamb is consecrated and consumed. This is how the church celebrates the Eucharist.

So, why not call your Easter celebration the “Eucharist”? Wouldn’t that be a more appropriate name to describe the festival? Why call it by a name associated with some pagan fertility goddess? What’s the connection?

Both things are true, as usual. Your attempts to create separation and division holds no merit. The Eastern Church celebrates the crucifixion as inseparably connected to the Resurrection. Try attending an Eastern Liturgy sometime. It iwill become abundantly clear to you that this separation you are trying to create is an artificiality of your mind.

It is not too hard to see what happened. What is currently practiced is not necessarily what was originally practiced.

 

[Mailman]

On the contrary, Mailman, you have shown nothing of the kind. And none of your “evidnence” (opinions of myopic historians) explains how it is that the Whole Church, including the East, has NEVER called this annual celebration of the death and resurrection of christ “Easter” (a European term). The Church celebrates, then as now, Pasca, which is a season that includes the Passover, the Passion, and the Resurrection.

So, now you’re saying your church has no festival called by the name “Easter”? Why, your Catholic Encyclopedia calls Easter “the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year”! And it says Leo I (do you know him?) calls it festum festorum – the greatest feast!

As I’ve said before, Catholics don’t celebrate the Passover. If you look at the online Catholic Encyclopedia’s article entitled “Pasch or Passover” it says the festival is celebrated only by Jews! It starts with, “Jews of all classes and ways of thinking look forward to the Passover holidays with the same eagerness as Christians do to Christmastide. It is for them the great event of the year….” Down through the last sentence on that article, not one word is said about Catholics celebrating this feast. Not one!

By the way, my historians may be myopic but they’re not blind. And that’s because they’re real historians, unlike you who only pretends to be one. But I could be wrong. Maybe you’re a real historian. If so, you need to brandish your credentials also. At least your stories will sound credible.

 

[CEM5]

So, now you’re saying your church has no festival called by the name “Easter”? Why, your Catholic Encyclopedia calls Easter “the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year”! And it says Leo I (do you know him?) calls it festum festorum – the greatest feast!

As I’ve said before, Catholics don’t celebrate the Passover. If you look at the online Catholic Encyclopedia’s article entitled “Pasch or Passover” it says the festival is celebrated only by Jews! It starts with, “Jews of all classes and ways of thinking look forward to the Passover holidays with the same eagerness as Christians do to Christmastide. It is for them the great event of the year….” Down through the last sentence on that article, not one word is said about Catholics celebrating this feast. Not one!

By the way, my historians may be myopic but they’re not blind. And that’s because they’re real historians, unlike you who only pretends to be one. But I could be wrong. Maybe you’re a real historian. If so, you need to brandish your credentials also. At least your stories will sound credible.

Hi Mailman,

The history of the word Eoster, from which Easter is derived from, comes from our Ven. St. Bede, who wrote:
"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated “Paschal month”, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.
There are no written records other than his, and no mention until years later from the Brothers Grimm in the 1800’s, and some scholars dispute that this teutonic goddess ever existed with this name. It is probable that St. Bede got the name incorrect, in his writtings, but that really doesn’t matter.

Easter is just a name we use for the description of our celebration of the Paschal Lamb: Jesus Christ and His victory over death upon His resurrection.

Jesus is God incarnate (do you dispute this?) and He is the Lord of the Sabbath, as He said in Scripture, and He instituted the NEW COVENANT!!

Luke 6:5 RSVA
And he said to them, “The Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

Luke 22:20 RSVA
And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Hebrews 8:8 RSVA
For he finds fault with them when he says: "The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;

Hebrews 8:13 RSVA
In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 9:15 RSVA
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.

Hebrews 12:24 RSVA
and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.

1 Corinthians 11:25 RSVA
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

We, as Christians of the New Covenant established by Christ, do not go to Temple (it was destroyed - recall) and make blood sacrifices, nor do we observe it as the ancient Jews have in days past (and modern Jews do today since they observe the Old Covenant and do not recognize Christ as the Messiah).

We, as Christians, observe Mass, and celebrate the Eucharist - the eteranal banquet of the Lord as His REAL body, blood, soul and divinity. He is the Paschal Lamb (the Passover Lamb), so we celebrate this continuation of His Last Supper (of Passover).

AMEN!!

 

[kentuckyliz]

Melchizedek was not of an inherited priesthood, and offered sacrifices of bread and wine.

The todah is the thanksgiving sacrifice, and the word eucharist is Greek for thanksgiving.

In memory of me is anamnesis and makes present what it recalls–just like how the Jews view Passover.

Harnack was a tool of the Kulturkampf and they were quite successful in destroying faith–Europe is way more post-Christian and secularized. I’m supposed to trust a historian with an agenda?!

Socrates would not have written about the practices of the early Christians because he lived 469-399 BC. Nice try. Thanks for playing.

 

[Mailman]

Hi Mailman,

The history of the word Eoster, from which Easter is derived from, comes from our Ven. St. Bede, who wrote:
"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated “Paschal month”, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.
There are no written records other than his, and no mention until years later from the Brothers Grimm in the 1800’s, and some scholars dispute that this teutonic goddess ever existed with this name. It is probable that St. Bede got the name incorrect, in his writtings, but that really doesn’t matter.

Easter is just a name we use for the description of our celebration of the Paschal Lamb: Jesus Christ and His victory over death upon His resurrection.

Hi CEM5,
It is a fact that the vast majority of ecclesiastical and secular historians agree that the name Easter and the traditions surrounding it are deeply rooted in paganism. Maybe it would not have been too bad had only the name been absorbed and not the practices that goes with it. When you look at these practices you will see that the historians are right about the pagan nature of the festival.

Take for instance the use of eggs during Easter. Eggs were sacred to many ancient civilizations and formed an integral part of the religious ceremonies in Egypt and in the Orient. According to J. Bonwick, “Eggs were hung up in the Egyptian temples. Bunsen calls attention to the mundane egg, the emblem of generative life, proceeding from the mouth of the great god of Egypt. The mystic egg of Babylon, hatching the Venus Ishtar, fell from heaven to the Euphrates. Dyed eggs were sacred Easter offerings in Egypt, as they are still in China and Europe. Easter, or spring, was the season of birth, terrestrial and celestial” (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, pp. 211-212).

Francis X. Weiser, in his work Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs says that, “The origin of the Easter egg is based on the fertility lore of the Indo-European races…The egg to them was a symbol of spring…In Christian times the egg had bestowed upon it a religious interpretation, becoming a symbol of the rock tomb out of which Christ emerged to the new life of His resurrection” (p. 233)

The Encyclopedia Britannica: “Around the Christian observance of Easter…folk customs have collected, many of which have been handed down from the ancient ceremonial… symbolism of European and Middle Eastern pagan spring festivals…for example, eggs…have been very prominent as symbols of new life and resurrection” (1991 ed., Vol. 4, p. 333).

This use of eggs point to Easter as a festival having to do with fertility rites, thus the name must have something to do with the fertility goddesses of the ancient world – goddesses like Eostre or Ostara or Eastre of the Anglo-Saxons, Astarte of the Phoenicians which is the consort wife of Baal the sun god, Ishtar of ancient Greece and Assyria, and other such names as Ashtoreth or Ashtaroth and Asherah, all goddesses of the pagan religion.

Many other customs we find practiced during Easter are borrowed from paganism – like the Easter bunny, hot cross buns, the Lent that precedes Easter, and yes, even the Easter sunrise service is pagan, condemned no less than God Himself in the Bible.

There can be no doubt that in this festival called Easter, the Roman church used not only the name of a pagan spring goddess but also its customs and practices to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Jesus is God incarnate (do you dispute this?) and He is the Lord of the Sabbath, as He said in Scripture, and He instituted the NEW COVENANT!!

I totally agree with you on all those points.

God bless.

 

[Mailman]

Harnack was a tool of the Kulturkampf and they were quite successful in destroying faith–Europe is way more post-Christian and secularized. I’m supposed to trust a historian with an agenda?!

So, who do you trust? Can you mention some names?

Socrates would not have written about the practices of the early Christians because he lived 469-399 BC. Nice try. Thanks for playing.

You think this is a game?

It’s Socrates the historian (“Socrates Scholasticus”- 4th century A.D.), not the famous philosopher. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of him: “His attitude towards the Church was one of unvarying respect and submission… His most notable characteristic is his obvious effort to be thoroughly impartial, as far as impartiality was consistent with conviction. He held the scales equitably, and even when he differed widely from men on matters of doctrine.”

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

So, the Passover and the Eucharist have the same meaning and significance.

No, sorry. Eucharist is not found in Judaism, except where it is mystically embedded in prophesy and sign.

They only differ in their manner of observance – the use of the lamb for the Passover, and the bread and wine for the Eucharist. Did I get that right?

They are alike in that they are both a form of anamnesis.

Oh, ok. So, Easter has nothing to do with the resurrection?

The resurrection was celebrated on the first day of the week, because that is the day that Jesus appeared to the disciples.

The Passover was calculated on the harvest, and the date changed with the lunar cycle. The Jews had no special significance attached to the first day of the week, The Passover was a season, or a series of days that culminated on a Sabbath (7th day).

 

[guanophore]

As I explained before, the churches used to celebrate the Passover on the correoct God-given date and according to Christ’s example. But later on changes were made. The Western church moved the celebration to Sunday to memorialize the resurrection.

This is really Jesus’ fault. He kept showing up on that day.

The Eastern Churches were primarily Gentile, and therefore, did not celebrate Passover at all.

Although there was strong opposition to this change from the Eastern churches, eventually, during the time of Constantine, they were strong-armed into observing Passover also on a Sunday according to the Roman Church’s practice. This celebration came to be known as Easter, a festival commemorating the resurrection of Christ.

I think you must stick to this rendering of history, even though it is not consistent with the facts. I understand why it is important for Sabbatarians to believe this, and to believe that Constantine was the source of the “strongarm”. If you keep studying history, you will eventually find out otherwise.

Your church does not celebrate the Passover, but Easter. It celebrates Easter as a season, yes, just like the Passover. But the similarity ends there. Easter is not celebrated on the same date as the Passover. Nor is it celebrated in the same manner as the Passover. The Orthodox churches may call their celebration “Pascha” but it is a far cry from the biblical Passover. The label may be the same but the content is not.

At least we are in agreement on this point: Christians do not observe the Jewish Passover.

We celebrate the fulfillment of this great sign, in Christ, who is our Passover Lamb.

(Catholic Encyclopedia, “Easter”)… “another consideration predominated. Every Sunday of the year was the commemoration of the resurrection of Christ…this Sunday became the Christian feast of Easter” – so says your Catholic Encyclopedia.

Is that enough to convince you that we don’t believe they are the same?

Now, you claim your church celebrates the Passover with a series of celebration that include the celebration of the resurrection

No, I never claimed any such thing.

(Did you conveniently forget to mention that in your other post?). But that is not how the Passover is celebrated after the manner that Christ established.

Jesus fuflilled the Jewish Passover in Himself. He did not establish Passover at the time of His ministry. Passover was established millenia previously.

The Passover that Christ established is no different from the old Passover [except for the bread and wine]. Its meaning and significance is the same.

I will accept that you believe this.

This is not the teaching of the Apostles which is preserved infallibly in the Church.

As you said, it is an enactment of our deliverance from sin, just as the old Passover was an enactment of the Israelites’ deliverance from slavery. Where does the resurrection fit in there? No, your church does not celebrate the Passover. What it celebrates is Easter, “the principal feast of the ecclesiastical year… the greatest feast…” – that Sunday of the year which was celebrated by the Roman Church in commemoration of the resurrection.

The meaning of the Pascha cannot be separated from it’s roots in the Passover, Mailman. It is anamnesis. What we celebrate is what was passed on to us from the Apostles. I did not “forget” that they were with Him when He instituted the Eucharist.

Even Justin Martyr (I hope you won’t disown him now) says that the feast days are only for the Jews. He says that while the Sabbath and other precepts were given to the Jews as a sign, God also gave them statutes and laws that were not good.

Do you really think that Justin believes God gave the Jews statutes that were “not good”? And if Justin did say that, do you esteem such a statement on the level of the Scripture? Catholics do not…

He infers it is these feast days and Sabbaths that God hates. He says the Sabbath and other rites were not observed prior to Moses, that the only reason given was because of sin – and since they were not required before Abraham, there is no need to observe them now (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 202-206).

It is likely that you are misunderstanding what he is saying because you are taking it out of context. I think that context is beyond the scope of this thread. God does not give us things that are “not good” for us, nor does He command us to observe that which He hates.

 

[guanophore]

Justin goes on to say that it is the eighth day that show a mysterious import which the seventh day does not possess. Since the Passover was a type of Christ and circumcision a type of the true circumcision we are circumcised through Him who rose on the first day of the week, however, called the eighth day (pp. 206, 215) – thus Easter had to be celebrated on a Sunday.

This was his opinion. It was not shared by everyone. His opinion is not considered by Catholics on the same level as the Scripture.

Justin says the reason the Jews kept the Sabbath, circumcision, and feasts was because of their transgression and hardness of heart.

Do you realize that he is making a reference to the fact that they rejected Jesus, who Justin believed was the Messiah?

Circumcision, he says, was given to the Jews that they might suffer the things they now justly suffer.

Justin believed that those who rejected Christ would suffer the consequences.

He added that Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, was uncircumcised and that the righteous men of old did not keep the Sabbath, yet they were pleasing to God (pp. 203, 204). So, according to Justin’s theology, because Gentile Christians have no hardness of heart and are not prone to sin, they are not to keep the festivals of the Jews.

No, Mailman. You were cooking along so well there for a minute!

Justin says nothing about Gentiles not suffering sins, hardness of heart, or concupiscence.

He did espouse a widely held belief that Christians were not bound by the Jewish ritual feasts, or circumcision.

 

[guanophore]

There is no doubt among church historians that the primitive Christians kept the Law of God including the Sabbath and holydays. According to the historian Latourette, original Christianity appeared as another sect of Judaism; and the early Christians observed the Jewish law, including ceremonies, circumcision, and the dietary laws (A History of Christianity, p. 67).

I sure have no doubts about it. All of the first Christians were Jews, and they had no reason to stop being “Jewish”. To them, Jesus was the fulfillment of their faith. There was no need for any drastic changes until the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Between 50- 70 AD, Saul of Tarsus began to fill the known world with Greek/Gentile Christians through his missionary journeys. One of the consequences of this was a conflict about whether Christians should be observant Jews.

It is impossible to assume that the early Christians were “breaking bread” [partaking the Lord’s Supper] daily prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Why do you find this so impossible? Does not the Scripture say they did?

Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, in his work entitled *From Sabbath to Sunday*, says that the Jerusalem church was made up of Jewish converts who were possibly administered by ex-priests, all “zealous of the law” (p. 143). In a footnote, Bacchiocchi comments on a work by Lino Randellini, who held that the Jerusalem church for an indeterminate period of time was made up of circumcised Hebrews who appeared as a sect within Judaism. They frequented the temple, celebrated the feasts, and observed the Sabbath, among other things (p. 143).

I think this is an accurate observation, and consistent with the Scriptural record.

Bacchiocchi, in commenting about the impossibility of Sunday worship being introduced by the Jerusalem church prior to 70 A.D.

The gathering of the Apostles on the first day of the week was clearly recorded in scripture. There was no conflict for the Apostles between observing the Sabbath, and observing the Lord’s Day on the first day of the week.

W. D. Davies who says, “Everywhere, especially in the East of the Roman Empire, there would be Jewish Christians whose outward way of life would not be markedly different from that of the Jews. They took for granted that the gospel was continuous with Judaism; for them the new covenant, which Jesus had set up at the Last Supper with His disciples and sealed by His death, did not mean that the covenant between God and Israel was no longer in force. They still observed the feasts of Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles; they also continued to be circumcised, to keep the weekly Sabbath and the Mosaic regulations concerning food. According to some scholars, they must have been so strong that right up to the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 they were the dominant element in the Christian movement” (From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 151).

I think for some reason you see this as contrary to the other facts in evidence about non-Jewish Christians, but it is not. Both things are true. While the Jews continued to observe their traditions, Gentiles did not.

Yes, it was quite clear to them which day was the Sabbath. It was also quite clear to them that the first day of the week was a common work day. They were Jews, remember?

Yes. And this is one of the main contentions of Constantine,a nd why he wanted the Council of Nicea. Half his empire was taking off work on Sat, the other half on Sun. That meant that commerce came to a screeching halt 2 days a week. He wanted the Bishops to pick one.

If they believed Jesus rose on the Sabbath, why would they make the first day of the week a special day in honor of the resurrection?

That was the day He appeared to them - repeatedly.

So, you agree with me then that the early Christians believed the resurrection happened on the Sabbath and not on the first day of the week?

They taught that He rose from the grave and preached the gospel to the dead prior to appearing to the disciples early in the morning on the first day of the week.

 

[CEM5]

Many other customs we find practiced during Easter are borrowed from paganism – like the Easter bunny, hot cross buns, the Lent that precedes Easter, and yes, even the Easter sunrise service is pagan, condemned no less than God Himself in the Bible.

There can be no doubt that in this festival called Easter, the Roman church used not only the name of a pagan spring goddess but also its customs and practices to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.=.

Hi Mailman,

Before I begin, I would like to ask you a question so as to hopefully get you thinking upon some very real truths.

1. Who do you think created the world and all that is in it, such as rabbits, eggs, and such?
2. Has not God always existed, or do you think paganism was in place before the creation of the world and all that is in it?
3. Are rabbits, eggs, colors and all that God created of God or of the devil?

That being, since the devil took some of God’s created entities and used them through paganistic worship of the created rather than the Creator, why do you fault Christians (who belong to God and are sealed as His through baptism) for claiming back what rightfully belongs to God?

In the Christian celebration of Christ’s resurrection, Easter, we have claimed back the rabbit, eggs, and colors, for God, and NOT for paganistic ritualistic use.

Now, the rabbit is symbolic, whose regenerative powers are legendary, and are used symbolically for the resurrection of Christ. The eggs are symbolic of new life (as in a new chick breaking though the shell to begin new life) so too, do Christians begin new life in Christ: This is why many going through RCIA are baptized at the Easter Vigil Mass; the Paschal candle is lighted with new fire, as Christ is the Light of the world. Hot cross buns (note: the “Cross” of Christ) are part of this remembrance that without the Cross, we would not have the resurrection of Jesus and the redemption of mankind. Bread is also symbolic for life, since it was a main staple of nutrition. Hard boiled eggs were, and are still, part of Jewish tradition in the Seder meal (passover meal).

Therefore, Mailman, I would hope that you will reflect upon God’s creation and use of symbols in glorifying God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), rather than concentrate on the thievery of paganism of God’s creation. We have “taken back” what always belonged to God.

AMEN! and God bless,

CEM

 

[guanophore]

It is a fact that the vast majority of ecclesiastical and secular historians agree that the name Easter and the traditions surrounding it are deeply rooted in paganism.

It seems that you are confused, Mailman.

The Christian celebration of Pasca falls in the Spring (before the festival of the firstruits on Pentecost). It is deeply rooted in the Passover, from which it takes it’s origin, and meaning.

Maybe you are mixing this up with the Pagan celebration of Oestre?

 Maybe it would not have been too bad had only the name been absorbed and not the practices that goes with it. When you look at these practices you will see that the historians are right about the pagan nature of the festival.

It also seems clear that you are failing to distinguish between Sacred Traditions (practices that come from the Apostles) and human traditions.

Take for instance the use of eggs during Easter.

This is a human custom with Pagan roots, and has no place in the teaching of the Church. I think you will find this to be true if you are willing to honestly explore what the Church teaches adn believes. There is nothing there about easter eggs.

… Europe. Easter, or spring, was the season of birth, terrestrial and celestial” (Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought, pp. 211-212).

Indeed this is true, and great pagan celebrations of the Oestre, or estruous (fertility) period were celebrated by Pagans during that season.

Clearly you have done some good research into the pagan roots of the Easter Egg. Clearly you are confused if you think it is part of Catholicism.

In Christian times the egg had bestowed upon it a religious interpretation, becoming a symbol of the rock tomb out of which Christ emerged to the new life of His resurrection” (p. 233)

I would be interested to know who “besotwed” this, and when it happened.

The *Encyclopedia Britannica*: “Around the Christian observance of Easter…folk customs have collected, many of which have been handed down from the ancient ceremonial… symbolism of European and Middle Eastern pagan spring festivals…for example, eggs…have been very prominent as symbols of new life and resurrection” (1991 ed., Vol. 4, p. 333).

This is a good example of what I was saying about you not making a distinction between folk customs and the Teaching of the Church.

In Holland,they used to put out wooden shoes at Christmans, but the Church doesn 't teach that either. In like manner, though, such a custom does not invalidate the faith.

This use of eggs point to Easter as a festival having to do with fertility rites, thus the name must have something to do with the fertility goddesses of the ancient world – goddesses like Eostre or Ostara or Eastre of the Anglo-Saxons, Astarte of the Phoenicians which is the consort wife of Baal the sun god, Ishtar of ancient Greece and Assyria, and other such names as Ashtoreth or Ashtaroth and Asherah, all goddesses of the pagan religion.

I suggest that it would be better if you did not dye any, or have any Easter egg hunts, that being the case.

Many other customs we find practiced during Easter are borrowed from paganism – like the Easter bunny, hot cross buns, the Lent that precedes Easter, and yes, even the Easter sunrise service is pagan, condemned no less than God Himself in the Bible.

You are right that there are many other customs practiced. However fasting during Lent is not one of them. Fasting for Christians was brought over from Jewish tradition, and the teaching of Jesus that, when the bridegroom is gone, the disciples will fast.

There is nothing sinful or condemned by God in worshipping HIm at sunrise, anymore than there is any other time of the day. He appeared early in the morning on the first day of the week, which is the origin of the Easter sunrise service.

 There can be no doubt that in this festival called Easter, the Roman church used not only the name of a pagan spring goddess but also its customs and practices to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

Although you have done good homework on the Pagan origins of Oestre celebrations, you have not done your homework on Catholic sources. You have produced no evidence that “the Roman Church” has taught any of these customs and practices as a matter of faith.

And, though I am weary in doing so, I will again confront your use of the word “Roman” here as a slur against the Church. The CC is not “Roman”, and the main reason your arguement fails is that the practice of fasting through lent, and celebration of the resurrection during the Pascal season is found in all the churches started by Apostles, including the Orthodox, who are not in communion with Rome. In order for your arguement to be valid, you would have to prove that these things were true in the East as well, where they never heard of the teutonic goddesses.

 

[guanophore]

So, who do you trust? Can you mention some names?

He told you why the scholar you were quoting should be read in the context of his anti-catholic milieu.

Any “scholar” you are forwarding should be considered carefully as to the source. One who reads with an anti-Catholic agenda tends toward anti-catholic scholars.

You think this is a game?

It seems like it might be for you. I am sure you are not here to proselytize, since that is against the forum rules. It seems to be entertaining to you to look for reasons to “debunk” what you call the “Roman” Catholic faith. You are not seriously expecting to find converts here, are you?

It’s Socrates the historian ("Socrates Scholasticus"- 4th century A.D.), not the famous philosopher. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of him: “His attitude towards the Church was one of unvarying respect and submission..

I pray you will one day reach such a state of wisdom and humility.

 

[Mailman]

Do you really think that Justin believes God gave the Jews statutes that were “not good”? And if Justin did say that, do you esteem such a statement on the level of the Scripture? Catholics do not…

Do I? Of course, I do! If he says so, why should I not believe him? Unless, he is saying it in jest I have no reason not to believe him. Why, do you think Justin is just kidding?

It is likely that you are misunderstanding what he is saying because you are taking it out of context. I think that context is beyond the scope of this thread. God does not give us things that are “not good” for us, nor does He command us to observe that which He hates.

Well, we can see that Justin Martyr does not share your opinion.

 

[Mailman]

This was his opinion. It was not shared by everyone. His opinion is not considered by Catholics on the same level as the Scripture.

I don’t know about that, but Justin’s contribution to the shaping of Catholic Christianity is indeed significant. He was the first to disparage against the Sabbath which eventually led to the rejection of the “Jewish” holy days and the enforcing of Sunday worship. His greatest contribution to the Catholic faith was that he was able to transform it according to the ideas of Hellenism.

The Emperor Julian’s criticism against the Christianity he saw in his day is quite revealing in this regard. There is no doubt he knew how to distinguish between the teaching of the Roman church and the teaching of the Bible. He was at one time a professing Christian, right? According to the historian Neander, Julian said that in his own opinion there was much in religious worship and in the conduct of the Christians that stood in plain contradiction of the Bible (History of the Planting…, Vol. II, p.46). Julian obviously saw how Christianity was infused with Hellenism, for he said, “Why is it that you dip into the Hellenic literature, if the reading of your own Scriptures is sufficient for you?” (p. 47).

Julian praised the Jews for at least remaining faithful to the laws of their religion, something he could not say of Christians. He was of the opinion that the “Christians” had departed from the doctrine of Christ, because Christ had enjoined the observance of the law (p. 55). He told the Christians: “You are such a pitiable set that you do not abide by that which has been taught you by the apostles. In fact, the doctrine which they taught has been continually deteriorating, and by your later teachers has been carried to a worse kind of atheism” (p. 56). How true!

 

[Mailman]

The gathering of the Apostles on the first day of the week was clearly recorded in scripture. There was no conflict for the Apostles between observing the Sabbath, and observing the Lord’s Day on the first day of the week.

What is clearly recorded in scripture is the gathering of the apostles on the first day of the week “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19) – not to celebrate the resurrection. And how could they have gathered to celebrate the resurrection when at the time they did not believe that Jesus was resurrected (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:37, 39, 41)?

The next and LAST recorded gathering of the apostles on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) happened on the day we now call Saturday night, not Sunday which is the Catholic Lord’s Day. At the very hour when the clock struck midnight to begin the day we call Sunday, Paul’s meeting ended. Then Paul, at break of day Sunday morning, engaged in the labor of walking some 20 miles to Assos, while his companions labored in rowing a boat some 60 long miles to rendezvous with the apostle – indeed a sacrilegious act had Sunday already been made the Christian holy day of worship.

No, the apostles NEVER observed the first day of the week as some special day, much less attempt to replace the Sabbath with it. Paul himself declared he kept the Law saying “so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets” (Acts 24:14).

If Paul had been observing both the first day of the week AND the seventh, why did he not tell the Gentile converts in Antioch, after preaching to them on the Sabbath, that they can meet the very next day, Sunday? The Gentile converts had “besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (Acts 13:42)? It would have been Paul’s best opportunity to straighten them out as to the new Lord’s Day for Christians. But, no, Paul waited the next Sabbath to preach to the Gentiles again, for we read: “And the next Sabbath day came almost all the city together to hear the word of God” (v. 46). Paul waited a whole week, passing up on Sunday, in order to preach to the Gentiles on the correct God-given day of Christian worship – the day God calls the “Sabbath of the Lord” – the seventh day of the week.

But it should come as no surprise to us that Paul kept only the seventh day Sabbath. It was his MANNER, his CUSTOM to keep the Sabbath holy and preach on that day. Paul, we read in Acts 17:2, “as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.”

Now, here [again] is the frank admission by an authority of your church on the unscriptural observance of Sunday and the clear command in the Bible to instead observe the Sabbath:

“Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify” (Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 89).

And Cardinal Gibbons is not the only Catholic authority to admit that the Bible nowhere shows Sunday should be observed by Christians. Notice this from A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, 1936 ed., vol. 1, by John Laux: “If we consulted the Bible only, we should still have to keep holy the Sabbath Day, that is, Saturday” (p. 51).

And here’s another from The Catholic Mirror on its Sept. 23, 1893 publication: “God’s written word enjoins His worship to be observed on Saturday, absolutely, repeatedly, and most emphatically, with a most positive threat of death to him who disobeys.”

These Catholic authorities did not see even a hint in the entire scriptures to suggest that Sunday was observed by the apostles. They all agree God’s Sabbath is clearly established in His Word. Only those desperate for scriptural support to justify their Sunday worship can “see” something that is clearly not there.

 

[Mailman]

I think for some reason you see this as contrary to the other facts in evidence about non-Jewish Christians, but it is not. Both things are true. While the Jews continued to observe their traditions, Gentiles did not.

Not quite right. The Gentile Christians in the east continued to observe the Law. It was the Gentiles in Rome who started Sunday worship and caused the rejection of all the “Jewish” feasts and holy days.

In the preface to Bacchiocchi’s book, From Sabbath to Sunday, Vincenzo Monachino, chairman of the Church History department of the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Gregorian University confirms this:

“We [the Roman Catholic Church] gladly mention the thesis that Bacchiocchi defends regarding the birthplace of Sunday worship: for him this arose most probably not in the primitive Church of Jerusalem, well known for its profound attachment to Jewish religious traditions, but rather in the Church of Rome. The abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday as the Lord’s Day, are the result of an interplay of Christian, Jewish and pagan religious factors” (pp. 7-8).

Clearly, the primitive Church of the apostles NEVER kept the first day of the week and all the other festivals of the Catholic Church. It was the Roman Church who was the first to abandon the “faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).

As far as Sunday observance, a Catholic study course informs us that “the [Roman] Church transferred the obligation from Saturday to Sunday” (Father Smith Instructs Jackson). This transfer happened in the second century: “The serious temper of the Jewish Sabbath was transferred to the Christian Sunday that replaced it in the second century” (Will Durant, The Story of Civilization). And this was not authorized by the apostles: “The Catholic Church… by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” (The Catholic Mirror, Sept. 23, 1893).

Yes. And this is one of the main contentions of Constantine,a nd why he wanted the Council of Nicea. Half his empire was taking off work on Sat, the other half on Sun. That meant that commerce came to a screeching halt 2 days a week. He wanted the Bishops to pick one.

And truth is established by majority opinion?

That was the day He appeared to them - repeatedly.

Ok, so the early Christians believed the resurrection happened on the Sabbath but they made Sunday a special day in honor of the resurrection because that was the day He appeared to them. But why is the professing Christian world today saying Jesus rose on Sunday morning? BTW, I hope you know that Sunday is not celebrated as the day Jesus appeared to His disciples but the day of His resurrection.

And isn’t it odd that the early Christians, knowing Jesus’ resurrection happened on the Sabbath, chose instead to celebrate it on Sunday? Would you, for example, celebrate the birth of your child on the day he was presented to you, rather than on the day of his actual birth, just because he was presented to you late?

 

[Mailman]

Hi Mailman,

Before I begin, I would like to ask you a question so as to hopefully get you thinking upon some very real truths.

1. Who do you think created the world and all that is in it, such as rabbits, eggs, and such?
2. Has not God always existed, or do you think paganism was in place before the creation of the world and all that is in it?
3. Are rabbits, eggs, colors and all that God created of God or of the devil?

That being, since the devil took some of God’s created entities and used them through paganistic worship of the created rather than the Creator, why do you fault Christians (who belong to God and are sealed as His through baptism) for claiming back what rightfully belongs to God?

In the Christian celebration of Christ’s resurrection, Easter, we have claimed back the rabbit, eggs, and colors, for God, and NOT for paganistic ritualistic use.

Now, the rabbit is symbolic, whose regenerative powers are legendary, and are used symbolically for the resurrection of Christ. The eggs are symbolic of new life (as in a new chick breaking though the shell to begin new life) so too, do Christians begin new life in Christ: This is why many going through RCIA are baptized at the Easter Vigil Mass; the Paschal candle is lighted with new fire, as Christ is the Light of the world. Hot cross buns (note: the “Cross” of Christ) are part of this remembrance that without the Cross, we would not have the resurrection of Jesus and the redemption of mankind. Bread is also symbolic for life, since it was a main staple of nutrition. Hard boiled eggs were, and are still, part of Jewish tradition in the Seder meal (passover meal).

Therefore, Mailman, I would hope that you will reflect upon God’s creation and use of symbols in glorifying God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), rather than concentrate on the thievery of paganism of God’s creation. We have “taken back” what always belonged to God.

AMEN! and God bless,

CEM

Hi CEM,

It is true that God created all these things that we see around us – the rabbit, eggs, etc. But God also created all the angelic beings, including the archangel cherub, Lucifer, who later became Satan, the devil. They are all His creation and created of God. Would we also say that we can use Satan in our worship of God?

Now, there are creeping creatures on earth which God also created. But He says that, “All that creepeth upon the earth shall be an abomination; it shall not be eaten” (Lev. 11:41). Although God gave man dominion over all the creatures He created on earth (Gen. 1:26), He also gave His Law which defines how man should live. That Law of God is man’s standard for right and wrong. By it he determines evil and good – “that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Rom. 12:2) which man must choose if he wants to please God and walk the path to salvation.

It is God alone who determines for us what is right and what is wrong. We are admonished not to lean on our understanding (Prov. 3:5) because, “there is a way that seemeth right to a man: and the ends thereof lead to death” (Prov. 16:25).

It may seem right for us to take those pagan symbols of worship and use them in our worship of God, but as far as God is concerned these are “abominations which the Lord abhoreth” (Deut. 12:31). His command and warning to us is this:

“Beware lest thou imitate them [the pagans]… and lest thou seek after their ceremonies, saying: As these nations have worshipped their gods, so will I also worship” (Deut. 12:30).

When we take these pagan festivals and use their ceremonies in our worship of God, we “imitate them,” we “seek after their ceremonies,” and we worship God the way they “have worshipped their gods.” God says He does not want His people to do that.

We may reason that we celebrate Easter to honor the Lord’s resurrection, but God says, “Thou shalt not do in like manner to the Lord thy God” what they, the heathen “have done to their gods” (v. 31).

God does not want us to imitate the way pagans honor their gods. He gives us this clear and specific command on how we are to glorify Him: “What I command thee, THAT ONLY DO thou to the Lord: NEITHER ADD ANYTHING NOR DIMINISH” (v. 32).

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

Do I? Of course, I do! If he says so, why should I not believe him? Unless, he is saying it in jest I have no reason not to believe him. Why, do you think Justin is just kidding?

Well, we can see that Justin Martyr does not share your opinion.

Or perhaps we can see that your understanding of what he wrote is inconsistent with his faith and meaning?

I don’t know about that, but Justin’s contribution to the shaping of Catholic Christianity is indeed significant. He was the first to disparage against the Sabbath which eventually led to the rejection of the “Jewish” holy days and the enforcing of Sunday worship. His greatest contribution to the Catholic faith was that he was able to transform it according to the ideas of Hellenism.

I think you might be a little late out of the gate here, Mailman. We can see the first evidence of the departure from the “Jewish holy days” already in the book of Acts.

The Emperor Julian’s criticism against the Christianity he saw in his day is quite revealing in this regard. There is no doubt he knew how to distinguish between the teaching of the Roman church and the teaching of the Bible. He was at one time a professing Christian, right?

No. He had only a nominally Christian upbringing and early in his life rejected monotheism in favor of neoplatonism. He never knew or understood the Teaching of the Catholic church, which was not “Roman”.

According to the historian Neander, Julian said that in his own opinion there was much in religious worship and in the conduct of the Christians that stood in plain contradiction of the Bible (History of the Planting…, Vol. II, p.46). Julian obviously saw how Christianity was infused with Hellenism, for he said, “Why is it that you dip into the Hellenic literature, if the reading of your own Scriptures is sufficient for you?” (p. 47).

More of a soldier than a philosopher or theologian, clearly.

Julian praised the Jews for at least remaining faithful to the laws of their religion, something he could not say of Christians. He was of the opinion that the “Christians” had departed from the doctrine of Christ, because Christ had enjoined the observance of the law (p. 55). He told the Christians: “You are such a pitiable set that you do not abide by that which has been taught you by the apostles. In fact, the doctrine which they taught has been continually deteriorating, and by your later teachers has been carried to a worse kind of atheism” (p. 56). How true!

Certainly there were many heresies that had run rampant between the writing of the scriptures and the time of Julian. However, it was not the doctrine that deteriorated - only the people who claimed to espouse it. As the NT clearly reveals, there have always been wolves among the sheep, apostates, and heretics.

 

[guanophore]

What is clearly recorded in scripture is the gathering of the apostles on the first day of the week “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19) – not to celebrate the resurrection. And how could they have gathered to celebrate the resurrection when at the time they did not believe that Jesus was resurrected (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:37, 39, 41)?

I have no arguement with this, Mailman. It was Jesus, who appeared to them while they were huddled there on the first day of the week, that they continued to meet and expect on that day. He set the pattern by doing it again the following week. In five weeks, again, Pentecost.

You are creating a strawman.

The next and LAST recorded gathering of the apostles on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) happened on the day we now call Saturday night, not Sunday which is the Catholic Lord’s Day. At the very hour when the clock struck midnight to begin the day we call Sunday, Paul’s meeting ended. Then Paul, at break of day Sunday morning, engaged in the labor of walking some 20 miles to Assos, while his companions labored in rowing a boat some 60 long miles to rendezvous with the apostle – indeed a sacrilegious act had Sunday already been made the Christian holy day of worship.

This is another strawman. No one is claiming that “Sunday had already been made the Christian holy day of worship”. Jesus sanctified the first day of the week by choosing to appear in resurrected form on that day. It was convenient for the early church to meet on this day, since the celebration of divine liturgy did not conflict with their custom of attending synagogue on Sabbath.

No, the apostles NEVER observed the first day of the week as some special day, much less attempt to replace the Sabbath with it. Paul himself declared he kept the Law saying “so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets” (Acts 24:14).

Ok, Mailman. If you wish.

If Paul had been observing both the first day of the week AND the seventh, why did he not tell the Gentile converts in Antioch, after preaching to them on the Sabbath, that they can meet the very next day, Sunday? The Gentile converts had “besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath” (Acts 13:42)? It would have been Paul’s best opportunity to straighten them out as to the new Lord’s Day for Christians. But, no, Paul waited the next Sabbath to preach to the Gentiles again, for we read: “And the next Sabbath day came almost all the city together to hear the word of God” (v. 46). Paul waited a whole week, passing up on Sunday, in order to preach to the Gentiles on the correct God-given day of Christian worship – the day God calls the “Sabbath of the Lord” – the seventh day of the week.

Yet another strawman. No one is claiming that the Aposltes did not meet, preach, or observe the Sabbath. They were all devoted Jews, for Christ’s sake!

But it should come as no surprise to us that Paul kept only the seventh day Sabbath. It was his MANNER, his CUSTOM to keep the Sabbath holy and preach on that day. Paul, we read in Acts 17:2, “as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures.”

Indeed, no surprise at all.