tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-55281587606088089122024-03-18T19:52:27.796-04:00AS BEREANS DIDThis blog archive is dedicated to speaking the truth in love about Herbert Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God, and its splinter groups. All from a Christian perspective.Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.comBlogger387125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-46117191039313339222024-03-13T06:05:00.057-04:002024-03-17T18:12:27.195-04:00Were Quartodecimans and Traditionalists Enemies?<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>This is going to be my final post in my series on Quartodecimanism. There is so much more to say, but that is exactly the problem. And, chances are you're getting tired of it too.</p><p>I started looking into the Quartodecimans due to an article I wrote back in January 2024, called "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/01/refusing-to-understand.html" target="_blank">Refusing To Understand</a>". Realizing this might aid my "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/04/easter-faq.html" target="_blank">Easter FAQ</a>" article, I decided to keep digging for more information. It was not a simple thing. How could I possibly put all of this into a Blogspot post? Can't. So, I chose to concentrate on a few points that had the most relevance to me, considering my background in Armstrongism. (If you don't know what Armstrongism is, just glance at the "Welcome to ABD" blurb or read the "About ABD" page.) All said, I could easily have two more posts just out of the material I cut from the three posts I published. And that's why this has to be the last in this series. I just wanted a little look into Quartodecimans, not a PhD specialization.</p><p>In the first post in this series, "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/02/primer-to-quartodeciman-controversy.html" target="_blank">Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy</a>", I reviewed the basics like timelines and locations. We found Lent is a real thing, the Council of Nicaea wasn't the shock to the system and tool of unfair oppression it is made out to be, and that the Controversy's origins were a strange combination of Apostolic tradition and personal freedom exaggerated by calculation and calendar differences.<br />In the second post, "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/03/quartodecimans-were-they-law-keepers.html" target="_blank">Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?</a>", I reviewed the claim that the Quartodecimans were theological ancestors of Old Covenant legalists like Armstrongism. Turns out they were not. They used law words, but understood them in a very non-law way.</p><p>I will finish this series today by reviewing an unexpected oddity I found while reading through Quartodeciman writings. You've heard how the two sides were different. I was told the two sides were virtually incompatible. One was God's true Christianity and the other agents of Satan himself. But is that really so? Read on and find out.</p><p>I honestly do not think you stand a chance of <i>truly</i> understanding the Quartodecimans without this.</p><p><b>UNCOMMON COMMONALITY</b></p><p>One problem with doing studies like this is the baggage you bring with you. The wilder your background, the more baggage you bring. I only had what I was given by my Armstrongist upbringing. So, I went in with those old biases and pre-existing ideas affecting me without being aware of it. That very baggage can keep you blind to certain truths. But if you try to stay neutral and let the data take you where it will, strange new things can open up to you. Oh, you'll still misstep, but on the whole you're better off.</p><p>As I read about Quartodecimanism, an idea began tickling the back of my mind. I began to suspect something wasn't right, but I couldn't quite tell what. Finally, it occurred to me: I had been making assumptions. There are at least two assumptions going on here:</p><p>1) Traditional Christians <u>oppose</u> the 14th of Nissan.<br />2) Quartodecimans <u>oppose</u> Good Friday and Easter Sunday.</p><p>Your initial reaction might be to say, yes, of course they did those things. But don't decide yet. We all know they refused to honor Pascha in the same way. That goes without saying. I'm not talking about that. I am questioning if that refusal means more. It is one thing to decline to do something, it is another thing entirely to actively oppose it. Was there no common ground at all?</p><p>Judging from how Victor reacted to Polycrates, you might think there was no common ground. The battle lines were drawn and shots were fired, right? Actually, no. That was a one-off. Practically everyone else in nearly every other instance urged unity.</p><p>If something was truly seen as heterodox, for example Gnosticism, there was no push for unity. There was quite a bit of condemnation. When Origen wanted to counter Celsus, he wrote eight books, each with more than <u>sixty</u> chapters - one has 99 chapters!<br />No one urged unity when Victor excommunicated Theodotus for heresy. Irenaeus did not fly in to save Blastus when he caused a schism in Rome and afterward sought to introduce Pascha on the 14th of Nissan (Tertullian, "<i>Against All Heresies</i>" chapter VIII). Irenaeus opposed him as much as Victor did. Again, there was Eleutherus (not to be confused with Bishop Eleutherius I of Rome), who, like Blastus, was causing schisms in Rome and issuing challenges against Victor over Pascha (Charles L. Souvay, "<i>The Paschal Controversy under Pope Victor I</i>", The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, Apr., 1929, pp. 52-53, on JSTOR.org). No one rushed in to save Eleutherus when Victor responded authoritatively. Many scholars think the reason why Victor reacted to Polycrates by excommunicating Quartodecimans was directly because of Blastus and Eleutherus.</p><p>Unity was not afforded to everyone. I think that only serves to highlight the overall push for unity. How can there be such unity if Quartodecimans and Traditionalists reject and oppose each other? In Armstrongism, where I came from, the Quartodecimans are called "true Christianity" and the Traditionalists "paganism". There is an ocean of difference there. Armstrongists wouldn't side with Victor; they would side with Blastus and Eleutherus. If that were true, <i>how</i> could there have been such unity? Why unity rather than libraries written about their errors? How can Polycarp go to Rome and share the Eucharist with Anicetus? That would be like Herbert Armstrong flying to Rome in his Gulfstream G-III to attend Sunday Mass with the Pope himself. How can Polycrates call a synod on the request of Victor if Victor was the pinnacle of evil? Speaking of synods, how can there be synods held to decide? A local synod wouldn't be held to decide whether or not to adopt a heresy. After Nicaea, Arianism was clearly treated as a heresy, but Quartodecimanism was just decided against. How can both ideas coexist, mostly peacefully, in several regions throughout the Empire? They had their differences, sure enough, but overall they did not condemn each other. We were told by Herbert Armstrong, and the claims are repeated to this day, that the Traditionalists were killing the Quartodecimans by the thousands. I see no killings at all. Not even close. There are plenty of records of Quartodecimans defending Pascha on the 14th, but no record of Quartodecimans condemning Easter Sunday, and only one record of one Traditionalist (Victor) condemning Pascha on the 14th - which was met with calls for unity. As I said in my last post, Polycarp, Aphraphat and Melito are Catholic Saints. And Ephram the Syrian is a Doctor of the Catholic Church!</p><p>Hopefully you see what I mean now. It is one thing to decline to do something, it is another thing entirely to actively oppose its opposite.</p><p>In Armstrongism (and similar groups), that opposition is central. There <u>needs</u> to be a world of difference in the past because there is a world of difference in the present. That opposition affirms the movement. It practically requires it. It is energized by words like "Controversy". It must paint one side to be "true Christianity" and the other "Babylon the Great" or there is no point in existing. No product differentiation means no good reason people should keep paying for the product. But, what if there was no true opposition?</p><p>I needed answers.</p><p><b>TRADITIONALIST VIEW ON 14 NISSAN</b></p><p>I started by looking into what traditional Christians thought about the 14th. After Nicaea, definitely there would be opposition. But prior? It didn't take too long before it became fairly obvious that both sides believed Jesus suffered on the 14th. Just because traditional Christians did not have an observance on the 14th does not mean they opposed the 14th (prior to Nicaea).</p><p>I will give Clement of Alexandria, a traditional Christian who died around 215 AD, as an example. He wrote his work "<i>On the Passover</i>" because he was so inspired by Melito's "<i>On the Passover</i>". A Traditionalist so inspired by a Quartodeciman that he needed to imitate it? The sincerest form of flattery. Where is the conflict there? Estimates on the dating range from 182-202 AD. Sadly, Clement's work is lost. But we do have some fragments, and here's one:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Suitably, therefore, to <b>the fourteenth day</b> [of Nissan], on which He also suffered, in the morning, the chief priests and the scribes, who brought Him to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might freely eat the Passover in the evening."<br />-Clement of Alexandria, "<i>On the Passover</i>" [bold mine]</blockquote><p></p><p>You can see here, Clement believed our Lord suffered on the 14th. That's the Quartodeciman view, from a Traditionalist. Both sides agreed on this. Oh, you'll find an outlier here or there who believed He died on the 15th, I believe Socrates of Constantinople wrote about this, and clearly they are wrong, but in general everyone agreed on the 14th.</p><p>Anatolius of Alexandria (also called Anatolius of Laodicea) adds this about the Traditionalists:</p><p></p><blockquote>"And the other party, <b>passing the day of the Lord's Passion as one replete with sadness and grief</b>, hold that it should not be lawful to celebrate the Lord's mystery of the Passover at any other time but on the Lord's day"<br />-Anatolius of Alexandria, "<i>Paschal Canon</i>", chapter X [bold mine]</blockquote><p></p><p>The traditional Christians did not <i>reject</i> the Passion on the 14th, per se. They did accept that our Lord ate the Last Supper, was betrayed, tried, crucified, and was buried on the 14th. They just didn't observe it as their focal Paschal day. What they did was observe that day with "sadness and grief". I need to be more specific about that last sentence - they disregarded the Jewish calendar, so what they confessed originally happened on the 14th day of Nissan, which was a Friday, going forward they observed instead on a fixed Friday as Good Friday, and it is Good Friday which they observe with sadness and grief.<br />Nissan 14 was originally on a Friday (As Bereans Did has several articles about this, perhaps try "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-sabbaths-of-matthew-28.html" target="_blank">Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28</a>"). Some chose to follow after Nissan 14, whenever it happened, and some chose to follow after Friday, ignoring the Hebrew calendar - which was increasingly wrong anyway. Both saw themselves as observing one and the same thing. For the most part, neither denied the other. Sure, you could find a Blastus or an Eleutherus on either side, but why judge the whole by such errant examples?</p><p>It is one thing to not observe the Pascha on Nissan 14, it is another thing to oppose it.</p><p><b>QUARTODECIMAN VIEW ON EASTER</b></p><p>This made me want to know - if the the traditionalists accepted the 14th of Nissan date of the Passion, then did the Quartodecimans accept the Good Friday to Easter Sunday timeline of the entombment and resurrection?</p><p>Again, I want to hearken back to my post "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/01/refusing-to-understand.html" target="_blank">Refusing To Understand</a>". The United Church of God read a document called the Didiscalia Apostolorum, which is at its core a Quartodeciman document, originally written in Syria in the 200's AD. This is a central document for any study into Quartodecimanism. The Didiscalia has a very unique timeline. It puts the Last Supper on a Tuesday. The United Church of God, copying Herbert Armstrong, saw the Last Supper on Tuesday and stopped there. To them, a Tuesday Last Supper equals a Wednesday crucifixion scenario. Their conclusion was that since the Didiscalia mentions a Tuesday Last Supper, that meant someone out there had a Wednesday crucifixion (a Wednesday crucifixion is the official Armstrongist position). I showed how that conclusion was premature. Truth is, the Didiscalia is the only Quartodeciman document with a Tuesday Last Supper, and it blatantly supports a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"But when it drew on (towards day) on the Friday, they accused him much before Pilate; and they could show nothing that was true, but gave false witness against Him. And they asked Him of Pilate to be put to death; and <b>they crucified Him on the same Friday</b>.</p><p>... And again (there was) the day of the Sabbath; and <b>then three hours of the night after the Sabbath</b>, wherein our Lord slept."<br />-Didiscalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI [bold mine]</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Regardless of placing the Last Supper on Tuesday, the Didiscalia still honored the Good Friday to Easter Sunday timeline. The UCG even acknowledged this! ...Then continued to say it indirectly supported a Wednesday crucifixion anyway.</p><p>But, more importantly, the answer to my question is <u>yes</u>. Quartodeciman team did accept the Good Friday to Easter Sunday timeline.<br />Isn't that odd? I bet you never read that on a Living Church of God website, "Accept Good Friday crucifixion, Saturday entombment, and Sunday resurrection, like the Quartodecimans."</p><p>But I can show you something even greater than this.</p><p>Aphraphat the Persian was a Syriac Christian and a later Quartodeciman who lived form about 270-345 AD. In the source I pulled, the translating author wrote this way in summary of Aphraphat:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"Therefore the true Passover is celebrated in the Church, that is the sacrifice of Christ (sections 5-6). Jesus is numbered with the dead, from the time of the last supper on Thursday. <b>From the night of the fourteenth of Nisan until when he arose on the dawn of the sixteenth</b>, he has completed three nights in Sheol (section 7). Our Lord gave the true baptism on the night of the Passover, when he washed the feet of his disciples (section 10). <b>Jews celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth, but for the Christians the greater day is Friday, the fifteenth</b> (sections 8 and 12). Our festival of unleavened bread is the festival of our Saviour. <b>If the Passover of the passion of our Saviour happens to us on Sunday, it is right to celebrate it on the Monday</b>, so that the whole week with his passion and with his unleavened bread is observed (section 12).<br />-Kuriakose Valavanolickal, "Aphraphat Demonstrations II", p. 18, Baker Hill, Kottayam, Kerala, India, March 2005 (summary of the Demonstration on Passover, XII) [bold mine]</p></blockquote><p></p><p>You get three heavy-hitting statements in here.<br />1) As a Quartodeciman, he honored 14th of Nissan as the Passion of our Lord. That date could fall on any day of the week. Regardless, he honored Easter Sunday so much that if the 14th of Nissan were to be on a Sunday, he would have the Pascha delayed to Monday in honor of the resurrection.<br />2) He regards Good Friday as a greater day than the Jewish Passover.<br />3) There is a difference between the Old Covenant Passover of the Jews and the "Passover of the passion of our Savior". This wasn't about law-keeping.</p><p>Brief note: before anyone gets the idea Aphraphat believed in a Thursday crucifixion, he did not. He is clear that Friday was the day He was crucified. He does have quite the unique way of explaining it, however. But I digress.</p><p>Here is what Aphraphat says, in his own words:</p><blockquote>"For if the day of the Passover of the passion of our Savior happens to us on the first day of the week, according to the law it is right to celebrate it on the second day... If the passion (of Christ) happens on another day of the week, we have no dispute about these things..."<br />-Aphrahat, "Demonstrations" XII The Demonstration on Passover</blockquote><p></p><p>That quote puts Sunday in such regard, due to the resurrection, that the Quartodeciman Paschal Week fasting schedule skipped over it.</p><p>The Didiscalia agrees with Aphraphat on that first point:</p><blockquote>"For it is not lawful to you to fast on the first of the week, because it is My resurrection; wherefore the first of the week is not counted in the number of the days of the Fast of the Passion..."<br />-Didiscalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI</blockquote><p>It is one thing to not observe the Pascha on Sunday, it is another thing entirely to oppose Easter Sunday.</p><p><b>QUARTODECIMAN VIEW ON GOOD FRIDAY</b></p><p>You will often read that Quartodecimans observed the Pascha regardless of what day it was. I will offer this example from a much later writer named John of Damascus (676-749 AD):</p><p></p><blockquote>"The Quartodecimans celebrate Easter on a fixed day of the year. On that day which coincides with the fourteenth of the moon, whether it be a Saturday or Sunday, they fast and celebrate the vigil and the feast simultaneously."<br />-John of Damascus, "The Fount of Knowledge II: On Heresies" </blockquote><p></p><p>From what we have seen, this claim is not entirely accurate. At least not for <i>later</i> Quartodecimans. Clearly, at least for <i>later</i> Quartodecimans, they did not have Pascha or a Paschal Fast on Sunday. Clearly, many had high regard for Sunday.<br />I wonder, though, are we really seeing an evolution of Quartodeciman practices here, or are we seeing traditional Christians describing Quartodeciman practices incorrectly? Sadly, we might never know. I lean towards evolution.</p><p>These quotes bring up something interesting. It seems to me that what they were doing every year is reenacting the original crucifixion week. When they say Sunday, it seems fairly clear they mean the day Jesus was resurrected (ie. <i>Easter</i> Sunday), but due to the calendar issues it might not have actually been the same Sunday when Traditional churches were celebrating Easter. To be fair, even Traditionalist churches celebrated Easter Sunday at different times. A good example is Rome and Alexandria. Even so, it might look to outsiders like any regular Sunday, but to the Quartodecimans it was the Sunday on which Jesus was resurrected - Easter Sunday. Same with Friday, it might look like any average old Friday, but to the Quartodecimans it was the Friday on which Jesus was crucified - <i>Good</i> Friday.</p><p>I am not claiming they used the names Easter and Good Friday (no one did at that time), nor that they honored them in the same way as Traditionalists do now, I am just saying the Quartodecimans held those Fridays and Sundays that fell during their Paschal Week in respect for the events that happened on them originally. Which makes it the same reason as Traditionalists. The Traditionalists do this same thing. Every year, they follow along with Holy Week. Palm Sunday, Holy Monday, Holy Tuesday, Holy Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday with stations of the cross and vigil, Holy (Black) Saturday with fasting, and Easter. Re-enacted annually as if it were the original.</p><p>When you think about it, this agrees with the traditional Christian position in a second way.<br />Every Sunday was a mini-Easter. That's why they call it "the Lord's Day". For some historical support on this, read the Didache chapters 9, 10, and 14. (There are several more sources for this, but that's for another article. I might recommend our article "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/03/constantine-vs-sabbath.html" target="_blank">Constantine vs The Sabbath</a>" for more on this Sunday topic.) Sunday was almost universally accepted, despite what you may have been told, and it was accepted because that was the day our Lord was discovered risen from the tomb. Quartodeciman and Traditionalist alike were reenacting the original crucifixion week every Sunday, but especially that one Sunday every year. Some people speculate this fact is at the heart of why the Gentile converts observed Pascha on Sunday in the first place. Easter Sunday was just a large annual version of every Sunday.</p><p>And not just Sunday, but Friday, too. Remember back when I said Clement of Alexandria was inspired to write "<i>On The Passover</i>" by Melito of Sardis? Both were lost for centuries. In 1936, a writing was discovered that many believed to be most of Melito's "<i>On The Passover</i>". In 1960, a second copy was found that guaranteed this was the missing work. It turns out the work was a sermon. A sermon some say was given ... on Good Friday.<br />If that is true, it speaks volumes.</p><p>It wasn't as if the Quartodecimans observed the 14th only. They had an entire week of fasting with special observances on the Friday and the Saturday.</p><p></p><blockquote>"But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, and taste nothing. You shall come together [Saturday night] and watch and keep vigil all the night with prayers and intercessions, and with reading of the Prophets, and with the Gospel and with Psalms, with fear and trembling and with earnest supplication, until the third hour in the night after the Sabbath; and then break your fasts. For thus did we also fast, when our Lord suffered, for a testimony of the three days; and we were keeping vigil and praying and interceding for the destruction of the People, because that they erred and confessed not our Savior."</blockquote><blockquote>-Didiscalia Apostolorum, chapter XXI</blockquote><p></p><p>Any number of sources will tell you this observance of Friday with its fasting and mourning and Saturday with its fasting and vigil, was the same for Quartodeciman and Traditionalist alike. Catholic and Orthodox churches still have these elements.<br />Once again, these rituals were done on differing dates depending on where you were, due to calendar and calculation differences, but the core was clearly the same.</p><p>It is one thing to not observe the Good Friday, it is another thing entirely to reject it.</p><p><b>THE SAME COIN</b></p><p>The Traditionalists did not <u>reject</u> the 14th of Nissan, and the Quartodecimans did not <u>reject</u> Good Friday / Easter Sunday.</p><p>I am guessing if you didn't like what I said about Unleavened Bread and Sabbath in my last post, you really did not like what you just read in this post. If one wishes to claim some ancestry from the Quartodecimans, it follows that one also adopts Good Friday crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection as we saw in this post, reject a legalist view of Sabbath and holy days as we saw in the last post, and observe Lent as we saw in the first post. Still want to be a Quartodeciman?</p><p>If you listen to the Church of God ministry, they would tell a tale of two very different groups arguing over some serious, incompatible points of doctrinal disagreement - far deeper than just the 14th/Sunday issue. Sadly, from what I've seen, this is not unique to Armstrongists. And the more they insist on saying "Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" rather than "Jesus", the worse it gets. I have found I cannot trust any legalist group who writes about the Quartodecimans. They all seem to do the same things, which is sad. They all seem to adopt the Quartodecimans, then transform them into versions of themselves.</p><p>That's what Herbert Armstrong did - transformed them into himself. Armstrong's personal version of the Quartodecimans is the unrealized baggage I came into this study with. It took a lot of reading to understand how wrong I was about their nature. I had been conditioned to believe the Quartodecimans were something very, very different from what they really were. This was not some group of legalist anti-Romans (for the most part). Quite the contrary. They <u>could not</u> have co-existed so closely with the rest of the church in every area, with unity being stressed so much, while being as different from the rest of the church as Armstrongism is to Catholicism. Those kinds and magnitudes of differences could not exist in unity, and would not have been tolerated together anywhere. I had to adjust my understanding, and once that happened I could see how the similarities greatly outweighed the differences.</p><p>If I had to summarize the difference, I would say it boils down to the exact same thing that keeps the Orthodox and the Catholics separate: insisting on tradition.</p><p>The Quartodeciman group started by doing exactly as the Apostle John did when John did it, which is what Jesus did. It wasn't about law-keeping nor by compulsion. They knew the law couldn't be kept. And it wasn't as if they didn't understand how anyone could have Pascha on a Sunday - they had the Eucharist every Sunday just as much as everyone else did. It was just their Pacsha tradition, and that was that. Jesus did it on that date, so why change it?<br />The Traditionalists group did exactly as the Apostles permitted them to do. They didn't keep the law, either. And they didn't care to rely on the broken Hebrew calendar. It was just their Pacsha tradition, and that was that. Sunday already pictured the Passion and the resurrection, so why change it?</p><p>So, when the two would debate which practice should win out, all either side could do is appeal to tradition. "We were taught by John." "We were taught by Paul." I do not criticize either side for this. After all, what is "orthodoxy" if not traditions handed down? One is going to guard one's traditions. Such is life. Naturally, the only solution we have is to get together into synods and ecumenical councils and hash it out before taking a vote. I feel Nicaea truly was the right way to handle it.</p><p>And that's the odd thing about this Quartodeciman Controversy, the two groups really were not very different at all. No wonder they were able to share the Eucharist together. No wonder why Victor excommunicating Polycrates seemed like such an overreaction. It all makes the centuries-long dispute seem so ... pointless. But to them, it wasn't pointless.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p><p>In my first post in this series, I said this:</p><p></p><blockquote>"Both sides agreed our Lord ate the Last Supper and was betrayed on the night at the start of 14th of Nissan according to the Hebrew calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem. Both sides agreed our Lord was crucified on a Friday and they also agreed He was resurrected on Sunday, the third day after being crucified. There are plenty of Quartodeciman documents that make this plain. These details of timing were never in dispute on either side of the issue. The Quartodecimans were not advocating a Wednesday to Saturday crucifixion scenario. (But that is for another article.)"</blockquote><p></p><p>This was that other article.</p><p>These, dear reader, are the beliefs of the Quartodecimans whom Herbert Armstrong called <i>disciples of Christ's true Christianity</i>. The Church of God splinter groups continue to this very moment to say the same. Do they understand the Quartodecimans beyond the shallow, surface knowledge of the Controversy? I don't think so, or they wouldn't say such things.</p><p>The more I study about this topic, the less and less I agree with claims about how different these two groups were. In fact I practically don't agree with it at all any longer. From what I have seen, these two groups were 99% compatible. This was not at all a case of "true Christianity" versus "Babylon the Great". They were not enemies. They were not even "frenemies". It seems a lot less like <i>two groups, two dates, one and the same event</i>, and a lot more like <i><u>one</u> group, two dates, one and the same event</i>.</p><p>I don't want to come across as saying the difference was no difference at all. It was a difference. But it was not nearly what I had been conditioned to accept up until now.</p><p>Even if you disagree with what you've read in my series, please at least grant me this much: I am stating my case with sources cited. Please grant me a pardon if I distrust the Armstrongist narrative at this point. Along with all of the other things that As Bereans Did has presented over the years, we have beyond any shadow of a doubt proven that the claims Armstrongism makes must be fact-checked before they are accepted.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><u>List of some sources used in this series</u>:<br />I have taken the time to find and provide links to make your life simpler and to show how the most important parts of this are available for free online.<br />I do not recommend doing your own study into the maddening world of the history of Quartodecimanism. But, then again, maybe you should.</p><p>Aphraphat, "Demonstrations", XII The Demonstration on Passover, and XIII on Sabbath, on Archive<br />https://archive.org/details/aphrahatdemonstr0024aphr/page/18/mode/2up</p><p>Anatolius of Alexandria/Laodicea, "Paschal Canon", on Bible Hub<br />https://biblehub.com/library/anatolius/the_paschal_canon_of_anatolius_of_alexandria/index.html</p><p>Athanasius, "Letters", on New Advent<br />https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806.htm</p><p>Claudius Appolinarus, on Early Christian Writings<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apollinaris.html</p><p>Clement of Alexandria, "On the Passover", on Early Christian Writings<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html</p><p>Didache, on Early Christian Writings<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html</p><p>Didascalia Apostolorum, on Early Christian Writings<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html</p><p>Ephram the Syrian, "Hymn 19" on Unleavened Bread, on Colby<br />https://web.colby.edu/re181/files/2018/07/Ephrem-19th-Hymn-on-Unleavened-Bread.pdf</p><p>Epistula Apostolorum, on Early Christian Writings<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/apostolorum.html</p><p>John Chrisostom, "Adversus Judaeos", on Catholic Library<br />https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-EN/Chrysostom.AdversusJudaeos.en.html</p><p>John of Damascus, "The Fount of Knowledge II: On Heresies", on Catholic Library<br />https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Synchronized-EN/Damascus.FountKnowledge2.en.html</p><p>Hippolytus of Rome, "Against the Jews", on Early Christian Writings<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus-dogmatical.html</p><p>Melito of Sardis, "On Faith", on Early Christian Writings (look for fragment IV)<br />http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html</p><p>Melito of Sardis, "On Passover", on St. Anianus Coptic<br />http://sachurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/On-Pascha-Melito-of-Sardis.pdf</p><p>Philip Schaff, "History of the Christian Church", volume II, on Christian Ethereal Library<br />https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2/hcc2</p><p>Socrates Scholasticus, "Church History", Book I, on New Advent<br />https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/26011.htm</p><p>Sozomen, "Ecclesiastical History", on Bible Hub<br />https://biblehub.com/library/sozomen/the_ecclesiastical_history_of_sozomenus/index.html</p><p>Tertullian, "Against All Heresies", on New Advent<br />https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0319.htm</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-47530472996239742024-03-06T06:42:00.024-05:002024-03-12T07:14:17.732-04:00Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>In my last post, "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/02/primer-to-quartodeciman-controversy.html" target="_blank">A Primer to the Quartodeciman Controversy</a>", we looked at the general timeline of events in the Quartodeciman Controversy at a macro level. I didn't address things in detail. As I said in that post, the topic is far larger than I ever imagined. Take that as a word of warning should you get the same ridiculous idea I had, to go looking into this topic. It is maddening.</p><p>Today, I want to look more closely at one point in particular - were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?</p><p>In the Church of God movement founded by Herbert Armstrong (which I call Armstrongism) certain points of Old Covenant law are required - like the Sabbath, holy days, tithing, and clean/unclean meats. Armstrong knew the Quartodecimans were observing a day called Passover on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan. Well, so did he. He concluded, if they were doing what he was doing then they must be doing it for the same reason: law-keeping. He adopted the Quartodecimans as theological ancestors, saying they were early members of "Christ’s true Christianity" that kept the Old Covenant laws.</p><p></p><p>While reading about Quartodecimanism, I noticed something odd. If you read the writings of a group who believes in law-keeping, you are going to read about Quartodeciman law-keeping. If you read the writings of a group who believes in Hebrew roots, you are going to read about Quartodeciman Hebrew roots. And so it goes. That doesn't sit well with me. How odd the Quartodecimans were so exactly like all of these dissimilar groups. Something about that sounds uncomfortably like spin. It seems the conclusion is based on certain assumptions.</p><p>And so we ask - is that really so? Were they law-keepers? Can history give us enough detail to verify this?</p><p><b>BE A QUARTODECIMAN?</b></p><p>During my own time in Armstrongism, I was told the Quartodecimans were preserving a true observance of Old Covenant law. Meaning, in the way I, a Sabbatarian, would understand it, of course. We understood that to mean, take up Old Covenant law and follow the Hebrew calendar. They were just like us, we thought. "If you aren't a Quartodeciman, you should be," we are told by the Living Church of God.</p><p>Armstrongism starts from certain assumptions and works its way out from there. (We didn't see them as assumptions, we saw them as God's truth.) One assumption is that the Old Covenant Passover <i>must</i> be kept by Christians, and therefore it <i>was</i> being kept. Now we just needed to find out by whom. The Quartodecimans were the target. They were keeping Passover and doing it on the 14th. How can that be anything other than law-keeping?</p><p></p><blockquote>"Among the Gentiles the churches in Asia remained the most faithful to the word of God. We pick up the story of the true Church in the lives of such men as Polycarp and - Polycrates. They were called 'Quartodecimani' because they kept the true Passover celebration instead of Easter."<br />-Herbert Armstrong, "True History of the True Church", 1959, p.15 </blockquote><p></p><p>How are they a "true church", because they kept the Gospel, or because they had faith? No. Just Passover on the 14th. That's good enough.</p><p>Herbert Armstrong also claimed the Waldensians as doctrinal ancestors (as well as other groups like the Henricians, Paulicians, etc). He told a story of how the Waldensians were Old Covenant law-keepers. They were an era of God's true church. He didn't come up with this idea on his own. Armstrong plagiarized the idea from A. N. Duggar and C. O. Dodd of the Church of God (Seventh Day).</p><p>The Waldensians were Sabbatarian law-keepers, right? No.</p><p>It turns out the assumptions made about the Waldensians weren't even close to reality. You can find the truth about the Waldensians quite easily. Ask the Waldensians what their history was. They have the receipts. We have several articles of our own to demonstrate this. We recommend starting with "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/10/true-history-of-true-church.html" target="_blank">True History of the True Church??</a>"</p><p>The Quartodecimans, on the other hand, are not so easily discerned. These things happened long ago. Most of the documents that could clear this up completely are lost. What we have remaining is a cloud of scholars and commentators with <i>almost</i> every opinion possible. We are going to have to work for this. Are we going to have better luck with than we did with the Waldensians?</p><p><b>QUARTODECIMAN PURITANISM</b></p><p>There are some clear points of similarity between the Christian Pascha and the Jewish Pesach: the relative date, the name Passover, the reading of Exodus, a fast in advance, and the involvement of some kind of meal.<br />The Quartodecimans had all these. And more!</p><p>There was once a Persian named Aphraphat. He was a fourth century Syriac Christian and a Quartodeciman. Several of his works were discovered in the 20th century. Just read what Apraphat has to say:</p><p><i></i></p><blockquote><i>If the Passover of the passion of our Savior happens to us on Sunday, it is right to celebrate it on the Monday, so that <b>the whole week</b> with his passion and <b>with his unleavened bread</b> is observed.</i>"<br />-Aphrahat, Demonstration XII "On the Passover" XII [bold mine]</blockquote><p>Unleavened bread? Yes. Seven days! And not just that. Here is an example from Aphraphat's demonstration on the Sabbath:</p><p></p><blockquote>"<i>But <b>let us observe the Sabbath</b> of God, in a manner which pleases His will. Let us enter into the Sabbath of rest in which the heaven and the earth take Sabbath rest, all creatures will dwell in peace and take rest.</i>"<br />-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]</blockquote><p>Looks like they were Sabbatarians keeping the law. Game over. Thank you for reading my blog. Go send away for some Armstrongist literature. God be with you 'til we meet again.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>BUT!<br />Before you go, there's one tiny detail you are going to want to know - <br />None of what I just quoted means the Quartodecimans were Sabbatarians keeping the Old Covenant law. It only looks that way on the surface.</p><p>To understand why not, let's start by looking at the law.</p><p><b>HORSESHOES AND HAND GRENADES</b></p><p>(Matthew 5: 18) For assuredly, I say to you, til heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.</p><div class="bible-item-title-wrap col-sm-3"><a class="bible-item-title" href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205%3A18&version=NKJV"></a></div>
<p>In Armstrongism, we called it "God's law" to really tug on the heart strings. The law never changes, we said. We kept the whole law!<br />How about the national laws for Israel, like sanctuary cities? No. Of course not those.<br />The sacrifices and ritual laws? Well, no. Not those laws. Those were done away.<br />The law of tithing as written? No. Not those either. We tithed of money only, which the law doesn't command, used a 10% system rather than the one-in-ten system of the Bible, and tithes required of Levites (the Ministry) was not paid by them but by the members.<br />The law of clean/unclean as written? Actually, no. We ate off plates and containers and stoves contaminated with unclean meats all the time.<br />The laws of Sabbath and holy days as written? (Be honest!) No. We caused others to work for us on Sabbath, we didn't pilgrimage three times a year, did not blow trumpets at the Feast of Trumpets, and did not build booths on the Feast of Booths.<br />But God said to observe Passover on the 14th of Nissan, and that's what we did. Not like the "rebellious Jews" who ate on the 15th.</p><p>The law! The law! ...Just not THAT law.</p><p>Did you know Gentiles were forbidden <u>by law</u> from participating in the Passover (EXO. 12: 43-49)? The Gentile converts to Christianity would have to be circumcised, join the nation of Israel, and become Jews in order to keep the Passover according to the law. What's more, the law forbids practicing Passover outside of Jerusalem. The Passover was a pilgrimage festival (EXO. 23: 15) - along with Pentecost and Tabernacles - and could only be observed in the area of Jerusalem (DEU. 16: 5-7). <b>That's the law!</b></p><p>I asked a friend of mine about that, once. Why didn't we travel three times in the year? The answer was, we used to but it cost too much. So, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity."<br />So much for 'not one jot or one tittle'.</p><p>The traditional Christians and Quartodecimans were both well aware of these laws about Passover. You can read about it yourself.<br />On the traditional side, none other than Athanasius (famous for his role in the Council of Nicaea) mentions these things in his "<i>Festal Letters</i>".<br />On the Quartodeciman side, Aphraphat mentions it several times in his "<i>Demonstration on the Passover</i>" section 2, and Ephram the Syrian mentions it in his "<i>Hymn 21</i>".</p><p>How could anyone keep law under those conditions? They could not. If you don't keep all the law, then you're not keeping the law at all (JAS. 2: 10). That was the entire point of those ancient writers. Not even the Jews could keep the law anymore. How could they? They could not. But if even the Jews could not, then how could the Gentiles?</p><p>Since that is the case, it is fair to ask, if they weren't keeping the law then why did they mention the law? And why insist on the 14th?</p><p><b>LOST IN TRANSLATION</b></p><p>I just got done telling you how the Quartodecimans knew the law couldn't be kept. Yet, it looks like they kept it anyway. How? If you really want to know how the Quartodecimans can use words like Sabbath and Passover and unleavened bread, yet not keep the law, then you have to read <u>all</u> of their writings. Not just enough of their writings to see the word "Sabbath" and that's where you stop.</p><p>Sometimes, it can be a simple misunderstanding.</p><p>In my post "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/01/refusing-to-understand.html" target="_blank">Refusing To Understand</a>" I reviewed an article from the United Church of God that was claiming the weekly Sabbath was being kept in Asia Minor (Quartodeciman home turf). They quoted from a Quartodeciman named Socrates of Constantinople, who lived just after Aphraphat and Ephram. They saw the word Sabbath, then they stopped. But on further inspection, it turns out "Sabbath" in this context cannot mean Saturday.</p><p></p><blockquote>“<i><b>In Asia Minor most people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath</b>: ... While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, others in the East <b>kept that feast on the sabbath indeed</b>, but differed as regards the month.</i>”<br />-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "<i>Ecclesiastical History</i>" chapter XXII</blockquote><p></p><p>There were more than two ways to observe Pascha. Yet, no one on any side observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday. Well, not unless it happened to be the 14th of Nissan. No one on any side <i>regularly</i> observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday. Can you see that 'Sabbath' here cannot refer to Saturday? Socrates uses the phrase "sabbath of the Passover" earlier. Sabbath can mean annual holy day.</p><p>It is possible to say <i>Sabbath</i> but not mean Saturday. Haven't you read articles that ask, "Is Sunday the Sabbath?" If someone thought it necessary to write an article addressing how people call Sunday the Sabbath (which it is not), then that means we cannot just assume <i>Sabbath</i> always means Saturday.</p><p>But sometimes it's not a simple misunderstanding. Context is key!<br /></p><p></p><p>That quote from Aphraphat earlier, the one about "let us observe the Sabbath", came from his demonstration written <u>against</u> the Jewish keeping of the Sabbath. That makes it a polemic <u>against</u> how the Armstrongists understand Sabbath. Context is key! The entirety of his demonstration shows there is no salvation value at all to a Sabbath rest, nor does it convey any righteousness, nor any justification, nor any purity, nor profit for sinners. If it could do any of those things, then it would have been given to the patriarchs, but it was not. The physical Sabbath was given for a physical rest <u>only</u>, to the Jews and their animals.<br /><br />Immediately prior to that quote, he says this:</p><p></p><blockquote>"<i>He </i>[God]<i> took and threw them </i>[the Jews]<i> out of His land, and scattered them among all the peoples <b>because they did not observe the rest of God</b>, but observed Sabbath according to the flesh. <span style="color: #cccccc;">But let us observe the Sabbath of God in a manner which pleases His will</span>...</i>"</blockquote><blockquote>-Aphraphat, Demonstration XIII "On the Sabbath" section 13 [bold mine]</blockquote><p></p><p>So, the Sabbath was good for physical rest only, and the Jews were doing that, and it had no other value, but something about it displeased God. It seems those two words 'of God' makes a world of difference. We need to figure out what a 'Sabbath of God' is.</p><p>From other areas in his demonstrations, we can reasonably conclude Aphraphat sees the destruction of the Temple and the Bar Kokhba rebellion as the point the Jews were expelled. It was in the Christian era. The Christian era changed things. God was displeased because they kept the Sabbath physically, as the Armstrongists understand it, but not according to the <i>true</i> Sabbath rest. The true rest had come, but they rejected it for the physical rest.</p><p>(MAT. 11: 28) <i>Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and <b>I</b> will give you rest</i>.</p><p>To a Syriac Christian, <u>everything</u> in the Old Testament pointed to Christ. Everything that came before Him was a type or a symbol or a mystery that, when properly understood, points to Jesus - Passover, bread, and Sabbath included. They read the Torah every Passover, but they didn't see it for Israel being freed from Egypt. They saw Jesus in every word. They read about Moses and saw Jesus. They read about lambs and saw Jesus. They read about unleavened bread and saw Jesus. They read about Sabbath and saw Jesus.</p><p>"I do that, too," an Armstrongist might say. Perhaps. But not like they did.<br />Let's see an example from the Quartodeciman author Ephram the Syrian:</p><p></p><blockquote><i>1. The lamb of Truth arose and broke his body for the innocent ones who ate the lamb of Passover.<br />2. The paschal lamb he slaughtered and ate, and he broke his body. He caused the shadow to pass over and he provided the Truth.<br />3. He had eaten the unleavened bread. Within the unleavened bread <b>his body became for us the unleavened bread of Truth</b>.<br />4. <b>The symbol that ran from the days of Moses until there, was ended there</b>.</i><br />-Ephram the Syrian, Hymn 19 on unleavened bread [bold mine]</blockquote><p></p><p>Unleavened bread ended there. The unleavened bread they wanted was Jesus. Can it get more plain? I think maybe it could. </p><p>Melito of Sardis, contemporary of Polycrates and mentioned in Polycrates' letter to Victor of Rome, says this:<br /></p><blockquote>"35) Nothing, beloved, is spoken or made without an analogy and a sketch; for everything which is made and spoken has its analogy, what is spoken an analogy, what is made a prototype, so that whatever is made may be perceived through the prototype and whatever is spoken clarified by the illustration. <br />...<br /><i>37) When the thing comes about of which the sketch was a type, that which was to be, of which the type bore the likeness, <b>then the type is destroyed</b>, it has become useless, it yields up the image to what is truly real. <b>What was once valuable becomes worthless</b>, when what is of true value appears.<br />...<br />41) So the type was valuable in advance of the reality, and the illustration was wonderful before its elucidation. So the people </i><i>were valuable before the church arose, and <b>the law was wonderful before the illumination of the Gospel</b>.<br />42) But when the church arose and the Gospel came to be, the type, depleted, gave up meaning to the truth: and <b>the law, fulfilled, gave up meaning to the Gospel</b>.<br />43) In the same way that the type is depleted, conceding the image to what is intrinsically real, and the analogy is brought to completion through the elucidation of interpretation, <b>so the law is fulfilled by the elucidation of the Gospel</b>, and the people is depleted by the arising of the church, and <b>the model is dissolved by the appearance of the Lord</b>. And <b>today those things of value are worthless</b>, since the things of true worth have been revealed.</i>"<br />-Melito of Sardis, "On Passover" [bold mine]</blockquote><p></p><p>Now <u>that</u> is plain!<br />And it's just like Colossians.</p><p>(COL. 2: 16-17) 16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.</p><p>Armstrongism is aware of this verse, and a shadow and a fulfillment. We read this verse all the time. Only, we read it to support law-keeping. The shadow (law) was even more important than before. That is clearly <u>not</u> how the Quartodecimans saw things. As you can see from Ephram and from Melito, the law was completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ then <u>discarded</u>. The Torah did not point them to law, nor to some "fulfilled" and harder law-keeping, but only to Christ! They didn't see the law as God's tool for our righteousness or necessary for His plan. The law had done it's job, it guided Israel until the Messiah could come, and was now fulfilled, depleted, worthless.</p><p>But maybe not <i>completely</i> worthless. The law still holds many lessons for us, even if it doesn't apply directly to us. You might even find it unusual to learn that Anatolius of Alexandria in his "<i>Paschal Canon</i>" used the law in Exodus to better determine when to observe Easter. The law helped bring the timing of Easter in Rome and Alexandria together in unity. All while not feeling bound to the law.</p><p>When an Armstrongist sees "unleavened bread" or "Passover" or "Sabbath" written by a Quartodeciman, they naturally draw from their own worldview and think, "I know those words. Those speak of the law."<br />But that is <u>not</u> what the Quartodeciman mind thought. The law is <u>not</u> why they insisted on keeping Passover on the 14th. The 14th had value only in Christ, not Moses. They did not follow the Hebrew calendar as sacred. They only needed that one day, and only because it was the day Jesus was betrayed. It had nothing to do with law-keeping.</p><p>(Matthew 5: 18) For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law <b>till all is fulfilled</b>.</p><p>He fulfilled it all. All of it. Then, the Old Covenant being satisfied, was replaced. Those words now have very different meanings.</p><p>(HEB. 8: 13) In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.</p><p>Now, Christ <u>is</u> the Sabbath. Christ <u>is</u> the Passover. Christ <u>is</u> the unleavened bread.</p><p>Hippolytus was a Bishop of Portus near Rome. This is the same Hippolytus that I wrote about in my article "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/12/plain-truth-about-december-25th.html" target="_blank">The Plain Truth About December 25</a>". A fragment remains in which he quotes some unnamed person who is likely a Quartodeciman. Here are the words of the alleged Quartodeciman: </p><p></p><blockquote>"Christ kept the supper, then, on that day, and then suffered; whence it is needful that I, too, should keep it in the same manner as the Lord did. But he has fallen into error by not perceiving that at the time when Christ suffered He did not eat the Passover of the law. For He was the Passover that had been of old proclaimed, and that was fulfilled on that determinate day."<br />-Hippolytus, "On the Passover"</blockquote><p></p><p>Regardless of whether you believe Jesus ate the Passover according to the law or not, it was not because of the law that the <i>Quartodecimans</i> kept the 14th, but because of Christ. That is not some kind of back door into the law. The law doesn't only say to eat at a certain time. It says other things, too. Those things weren't being done, which is why I included the last section "horseshoes and hand grenades" first.</p><p>And so it is when Aphraphat says "his unleavened bread" it doesn't mean physically unleavened bread, it means participating in Jesus. And when he says "Sabbath of God" it doesn't mean Saturday, it refers to a new life in Jesus. This is exactly what Paul was trying to say.</p><p>(I COR. 5: 7-8) "<i>7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.</i>"</p><p>In the Church of God splinters, this verse is read annually, used as a proof-text in support of law-keeping. "It says 'let us keep the feast'," we would point out. But no, law-keeping is not what any of these people had in mind. Jesus Christ was in mind.</p><p>They couldn't keep the law as written. If you cannot keep it as written then you cannot keep it period. They didn't see themselves as obligated to try. It wasn't that they abandoned the law, per se, but that in Christ the law was fulfilled. If you have Christ, and they did, then you have faith and love, and if you have faith and love then you have fulfilled the whole law (ROM. 13: 10; I JON. 3: 23). A righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees is in you (MAT. 5: 20). So, in this way they were able to talk about points of the law but not keep to the letter of the law, because these words and the fulfillment meant something quite different to them.</p><p>If you want to know a little more about what Quartodeciman belief really was, apart from Passover, read "<i>Early Syriac Theology</i>" by Seely Joseph Beggiani. You aren't going to find very much in common with Herbert Armstrong. Remember how the Waldensians are still here and can refute claims about their law-keeping? Same is true about the Syrian Church. Go ask them what their history is. They have the receipts. Aphraphat, Melito, Socrates, and Ephram were Syriac Christian. Polycarp, Aphraphat and Melito are venerated as Saints. And Ephram the Syrian is a <i><a href="https://ucatholic.com/saints/st-ephrem/" target="_blank">Doctor of the Catholic Church</a></i>! Didn't you know that?</p><p>Still think you should be a Quartodeciman?</p><p>I am sure the protest will be, "The pagans had already infiltrated and perverted the truth by the time of Melito and Ephram and Aphraphat etc." <br />But that's not what Herbert Armstrong said. He called Polycrates "another disciple of Christ’s true Christianity" ("Mystery of the Ages", p.53). Go to "Life, Hope, and Truth" ministries, a media outlet for the Church of God, A Worldwide Association, and see how they call these men true followers of God.<br />Polycrates outlived Saint Melito. Mystery of the Ages is the grandest book Herbert Armstrong ever wrote. It was called 'another book of the Bible'. If Polycrates was a "disciple of Christ's true Christianity", and Polycrates agreed for the most part with all of these people I've quoted here, then they are also disciples of "Christ's true Christianity". What does that say? It can't be "Christ's true" and pagan, both. So, which is it?</p><p>If you choose <i>pagan</i>, then the words of any Quartodeciman author no longer hold any benefit. Stop reading them. All that talk about why we should all be Quartodeciman just went right out the window. But if you don't choose <i>Christ's true</i>, then welcome to mainstream Christianity, my friend. You can cancel that subscription to Armstrongist literature now.</p><p>And what shall we say about the blessed Polycarp, disciple of John, who lived well before the other examples I've given so far. He says:</p><p></p><blockquote>"...it is by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."<br />-Polycarp, "Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians"</blockquote><p></p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p><p>At the start of this post, I asked, "were the Quartodecimans really Old Covenant law-keepers?" Confidently, we can answer no.</p><p>Were there some we could describe as Judaizes? I'm sure. Socrates of Constantinople records some instances of this sort (e.g., Sabbatius in "Church History", book V, chapter XXI). It was a problem enough in Galatians 2 for Paul to mention both Peter and Barnabas struggled with it. But for the most part that does not describe the Quartodecimans.</p><p>Some see Pascha on the 14th and think, the law! But that is not the case here. They read words like Passover, unleavened bread, and Sabbath and think, our ancestors! But that is not the case here. How can the Living Church of God say, "be Quartodeciman," when they don't have the slightest idea what that means? They cannot. As it turns out "be Quartodeciman" actually means "be our version of Quartodeciman". But their version is a fake.</p><p>Just like the Waldensians, the Quartodecimans are not at all Armstrongist theological ancestors. It's all a fraud. Again and again and again, a pattern of dishonest documentation. Do you see the emptiness of these fabrications now that you know the Quartodecimans never kept the law to begin with?</p><p>We absolutely must read more than just a quote here and a paragraph there to understand any topic. If we are going to read, we must understand what we read <i>in the context the Quartodecimans intended</i>. Or what's the point? Are we reading at all? In order to get that context, we need to read as many of their works we can. We see the people who create content for the Church of God splinter groups do not understand them. They clearly didn't read to understand. They have no interest in context. They read many things, but only to find what they think will support predetermined conclusions. Is that reading at all? If what they find doesn't match what they hoped for, we either never hear about it at all or they make something up whole cloth to explain it away. Wouldn't it be better just to tell the truth? Oh, but they've already said too much to go back now.</p><p>In my next post, I will further explore the similarities between Quartodecimans and Traditionalists. You think their views on the law are unexpected? I think you might be quite surprised indeed to peek behind this curtain.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-35338591903139715512024-02-28T06:26:00.036-05:002024-03-10T12:14:06.082-04:00Primer To The Quartodeciman Controversy<div style="text-align: left;">Any good discussion on Easter ought to eventually mention the disputes in the early church over the observance of Easter, and particularly the one that has since become known as the Quartodeciman Controversy (aka the Easter Controversy). In the fourteen years since I first started investigating Easter, I have never dug into this topic in its own post.</div><div><p style="text-align: left;">Many people try to adopt the Quartodecimans. I find it curious that many of those who try to ally with the Quartodecimans don't really understand them. Many know they refused a fixed Sunday observance of Pascha, but that is about it, and the imagination fills in the rest. I found the reality quite interesting. My point today will be to review the general framework of the Quartodeciman Controversy and try to clarify what really happened and when.</p><p style="text-align: left;">This topic is far larger than I ever anticipated. The Quartodeciman Controversy is just one of many Easter-timing disputes at that time. It seems the presence of Jewish converts and the multitude of calendars and ways to calculate moons caused several areas to be slightly off from one another - both before and after Nicaea. Disputes started in the first century and continue until today.<br />But regarding only the Quartodeciman issue, there are already so many things written on the topic by so many people over so much time, it wouldn't be possible for me to address everything. I am forced to summarize, then begin cutting out material from there. So, today's post is going to be a primer only. A thirty-thousand foot view, so to speak.</p><p style="text-align: left;">For the sake of clarity, I am going to try not to use the word Easter so much. Instead, I will use the older word <i>Pascha</i>. Easter specifically refers to Pascha observed on Sunday. Since the crux of the issue is one feast being observed in two ways, I feel using Easter will be unnecessarily confusing. Whereas Pascha is my way of referring to the New Covenant Passover regardless of particulars. I prefer Pascha over Passover because Passover is specific to the Jews and I don't want confusion there either.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Let's start digging!</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>INTRO TO THE QUARTODECIMAN CONTROVERSY</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Early Christianity was divided over the details of the Paschal Fast and the Paschal meal.</p><p style="text-align: left;">One group, not coincidentally from areas with high populations of Jewish converts, always observed the Lord's Supper on a certain date regardless of what day of the week it fell on - the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nissan (according to the calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem).<br />They received the nickname Quartodeciman, after the Latin term <i>quarta decima</i> meaning fourteen. They were "the fourteeners". The term Quartodeciman doesn't appear until closer to the fourth century, and was not used by the Quartodeciman side to describe themselves.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The other group, from areas with high populations of Gentile converts, always observed the Lord's Supper on a certain day of the week regardless of what date it fell on - Sunday (after the 14th of Nissan). They didn't have a nickname. I will just call them "traditional Christians", for lack of a better term.</p><p style="text-align: left;">I don't have time to explore this today, but by the end of the second century a third group would appear. The Quartodeciman group would split into a third opinion which could be described as between the two.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Eusebius of Caesarea introduces the Controversy this way:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"A question of no small importance arose at that time [in the second century]. 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 Savior's Pascha. 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 Savior."<br />-Eusebius, "<i>Church History</i>", book V, chapter 23</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Please do not misunderstand. Eusebius is not saying some new Pascha tradition appeared in the second century. That is not the case. He specifically means a <u>dispute</u> arose in the 100s AD over pre-existing traditions. The traditions were old, the dispute was new.<br />Some have claimed the Controversy was over two separate days, one Christian and one pagan. That is not true. Eusebius tells us there was, </p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>“...diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast...”<br />-Eusebius, "<i>Life of Constantine</i>", book III, chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”.</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">It was one feast, entirely Christian, with differences of opinion on how and when it should be kept.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Most people believe the disagreement was entirely over <i>when</i> to observe the Pascha, but that is not accurate. It could be argued the dispute had more to do with <i>fasting</i> then feasting. The disagreement was over 1) the length of the fast before the Lord's Supper, 2) the nature of the fast, and 3) when to stop fasting and observe the communal meal of the Lord's Supper.</p><p style="text-align: left;">In the 190s AD, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (France), wrote a letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, which gives us a little more detail about the debate itself:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote><div style="text-align: left;">"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."</div><div style="text-align: left;">-Eusebius "<i>Church History</i>", book V, chapter 24</div></blockquote><p>Eusebius' own criticism adds another detail.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><blockquote>"...some afflicting themselves with fastings and austerities, while others devoted their time to festive relaxation..."<br />-Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", book III, chapter 5</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">So, there was fasting, but not universally. Some people were on holiday. Sounds a lot like I Corinthians 11: 17-22.</p><p>I think that accurately builds a picture on the issues. Now, a word on what they agreed on.</p><p>Both sides agreed our Lord ate the Last Supper and was betrayed on the night at the start of 14th of Nissan according to the Hebrew calendar used at the Temple in Jerusalem. Both sides agreed our Lord was crucified on a Friday and they also agreed He was resurrected on Sunday, the third day after being crucified. There are plenty of Quartodeciman documents that make this plain. These details of timing were never in dispute on either side of the issue. The Quartodecimans were not advocating a Wednesday to Saturday crucifixion scenario. (But that is for another article.)</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>FASTING (LENT) IS CENTRAL</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Fasting was an integral part of Judaism and therefore Christianity. The Mishnah describes a fast before Passover.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"On the eve of Passover, adjacent to mincha [afternoon prayer] time, a person may not eat until dark, so that he will be able to eat matza that night with a hearty appetite." <br />-Mishnah Pesachim chapter 10</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">The Mishnah was written a bit later on, but it still illustrates the point of Jews and fasting.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The early church had several regular fasts, even weekly. To this day, the Catholics and Orthodox have a fast before taking the Eucharist on Sunday. There was a fast every year before the Paschal meal.<br />In English and German the fast came to be called Lent. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lent says this:</p><p></p><blockquote>"The Teutonic word Lent, which we employ to denote the forty days' fast preceding Easter, originally meant no more than the spring season. Still it has been used from the Anglo-Saxon period to translate the more significant Latin term quadragesima (French carême, Italian quaresima, Spanish cuaresma), meaning the "forty days", or more literally the "fortieth day". This in turn imitated the Greek name for Lent, tessarakoste (fortieth), a word formed on the analogy of Pentecost (pentekoste), which last was in use for the Jewish festival before New Testament times."<br />-Thurston, Herbert. "Lent." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 15 Apr. 2023 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09152a.htm> </blockquote><p></p><p>The Germans had a habit of naming holidays after the time of year in which they fell. The English inherited it, because Saxons are German, and here we are today. The Paschal Fast is called Lent for exactly the same reason why Pascha is called Easter.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The Paschal Fast was central to the Quartodeciman debate. The Paschal Fast was clearly not 40 days at first, as it is today. Not even close. As Irenaeus said, "<i>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.</i>" It started small and grew over time. A 40-day tradition can be seen by the year 329AD in Alexandria:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"We begin the fast of forty days on the 13th of the month Phamenoth (Mar. 9). After we have given ourselves to fasting in continued succession, let us begin the holy Paschal162 week on the 18th of the month Pharmuthi (April 13). Then resting on the 23rd of the same month Pharmuthi (April 18), and keeping the feast afterwards on the first of the week, on the 24th (April 19)..."<br />-Athanasius, Festal Letter #2, for the year 329-330</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Socrates of Constantinople has quite a bit to say about the fasts, and it turns out forty days was quite popular (even if it wasn't really forty days):<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"And it will not perhaps be unseasonable to notice here the diversity of customs in the churches. The fasts before Easter will be found to be differently observed among different people. Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter, excepting Saturdays and Sundays. Those in Illyrica and all over Greece and Alexandria observe a fast of six weeks, which they term `The forty days' fast.' Others commencing their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and fasting three five days only, and that at intervals, yet call that time `The forty days' fast.' It is indeed surprising to me that thus differing in the number of days, they should both give it one common appellation [of forty days fast]; but some assign one reason for it, and others another, according to their several fancies. One can see also a disagreement about the manner of abstinence from food, as well as about the number of days. Some wholly abstain from things that have life: others feed on fish only of all living creatures: many together with fish, eat fowl also, saying that according to Moses, these were likewise made out of the waters. Some abstain from eggs, and all kinds of fruits: others partake of dry bread only; stilt others eat not even this: while others having fasted till the ninth hour, afterwards take any sort of food without distinction. And among various nations there are other usages, for which innumerable reasons are assigned. Since however no one can produce a written command as an authority, it is evident that the apostles left each one to his own free will in the matter, to the end that each might perform what is good not by constraint or necessity. Such is the difference in the churches on the subject of fasts."<br />-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Church History", Book V, chapter XXII</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">The fast was broken by a communal meal as an observance of the Lord's Supper. And that leads us to the big question at hand - when should the fasting and feasting happen? That is the critical issue in the controversy.</p><p style="text-align: left;">And, no, Lent has nothing to do with weeping for Tammuz. That happened in the month of Tammuz, which is about three months later, around June/July.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>LOCATING THE GROUPS</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">You may have heard this issue was east vs west, or Jerusalem vs Rome, but it wasn't nearly as simple as that. From the evidence we have, it is reasonable to conclude both opinions existed to some degree in nearly all areas. All areas had their own struggles deciding between the two. The issue was addressed region by region. Eventually, the only remaining strongholds of Quartodeciman practice were Asia Minor (ie. modern Turkey), Syria, and some areas of Persia. In other words, areas of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Due to this slow decision process, by the time the Council of Nicaea was called, the Quartodecimans were deeply in the minority.</p><p style="text-align: left;">We can see which regions held which opinion from Eusebius' book "<i>The Life of Constantine</i>". In it, Eusebius quotes a letter from Constantine written after the Council of Nicaea. This is the official letter where Constantine wrote to the entire church informing them of the decisions of the Council. Constantine urges them all to come into agreement. In that letter, Constantine says:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">"...and since that arrangement [the decision at Nicaea] is consistent with propriety which is observed by all the churches of <b>the western, southern, and northern parts of the world, and by some of the eastern also</b>: for these reasons all are unanimous on this present occasion..." </p><p style="text-align: left;">"...that practice [observing the Lord's Supper on Sunday] which is observed at once in the <b>city of Rome, and in Africa; throughout Italy, and in Egypt, in Spain, the Gauls, Britain, Libya, and the whole of Greece; in the dioceses of Asia and Pontus, and in Cilicia</b>, with entire unity of judgment. And you will consider not only that the number of churches is far greater in the regions I have enumerated than in any other..."<br />-Eusebius, “Life of Constantine”, book III, chapter 19 [bold mine].</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">This isn't the only place where Eusebius gives us evidence of which areas joined which side. He provides more in his "Church History". I will quote the entire 23rd chapter:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For <b>the parishes of all Asia</b>, 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 Savior's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. <b>But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world</b> 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 Savior.</p><p style="text-align: left;">"Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in <b>Palestine</b>, over whom Theophilus, bishop of <b>Cæsarea</b>, and Narcissus, bishop of <b>Jerusalem</b>, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in <b>Pontus</b> over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in <b>Gaul</b> of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in <b>Osroene</b> and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at <b>Corinth</b>, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote<i>.</i></p><p style="text-align: left;">"And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision."<br />-Eusebius, "Church History", book V, chapter 23 [bold mine].</p></blockquote><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">Now I will quote the entire 25th chapter:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>"Those in <b>Palestine</b> whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of <b>Tyre</b>, and Clarus of the church of <b>Ptolemais</b>, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the Passover which <b>had come to them in succession from the apostles</b>, at the close of their writing add these words:</p><p>" 'Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also <b>in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do</b> [Alexandria was not a Quartodeciman area]. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.' "<br />-Eusebius, "Church History", book V, chapter 25 [bold mine].</p></blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">You can see now that the areas where Quartodecimanism was in the majority were mostly located in Asia Minor (except Pontus in the north, and Osroene and Cilicia in the south). We can tell from other writings there were Quartodecimans throughout Syria and some areas of Persia. The rest of the world was in the traditional camp.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>ORIGINS OF THE CONTROVERSY</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">From Herbert Armstrong, I was made to believe Easter Sunday was adopted into Christianity from foreign paganism at the Council of Nicaea due to pressure from the Pope and Constantine the Great. That might perhaps lead one to believe the debate was <i>after</i> Nicaea. All of that is absolutely, completely false.</p><p style="text-align: left;">If I had used even the slightest amount of logic, I would have noticed the Quartodeciman Controversy was one of the reasons the Council of Nicaea was called in the first place. The debate existed within Christianity long before Nicaea. I was surprised to learn not only did the issue predate Nicaea, it existed <u>from the very start</u>, it was debated for <u>centuries</u>, and <u>multiple local Synods</u> were held about the topic before there was a Constantine. I wonder why I didn't know this earlier. Herbert Armstrong knew it! He said as much:</p><p></p><blockquote>"I found in historic records that there had been heated and violent controversies over this very question directly and indirectly during the first three centuries of the Church."<br />-Herbert Armstrong, "Where Is The True Church?", 1984, p.21</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">When I say 'very beginning' I mean it. Nicaea was in 325 AD. Three centuries before that means what? The very beginning.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Most of what we know comes from the historian Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea in Syria (a Quartodeciman region). Eusebius related details from historical documents he had access to. From what he relates, both groups claimed to have received their traditions <i>directly from the Apostles</i>. The Quartodecimans were taught by John and Philip, according to Polycarp and Polycrates. Traditionalists were taught by unnamed Apostles, according to sources such as Claudius Apollinaris and Eusebius. Tradition states it was Paul and Peter. The pseudepigraphal work of "<i>The Paschal Canon</i>" of Anatolius of Laodicea/Alexandria, chapter X, supports that it was Peter and Paul, and Socrates of Constantinople (called Scholasticus) in his "<i>Church History</i>", book V chapter XXII, recognizes it. Socrates also mentions no one could <i>prove</i> their claims with any written evidence from the Apostles.<br />Nothing specifically says this, but if Rome was taught by Peter and Paul, then it is reasonable to conclude Alexandria was taught by Mark.<br /></p><p style="text-align: left;">There is at least one non-Armstrongist scholar who would disagree with me: Gerard Rouwhorst. In the spirit of balance, I figured I would mention him. I respect him. He knows his material. He leaves room for others to disagree with him, and that makes me respect him all the more. Understand that there are a multitude of opinions on just about anything, and the origins of this controversy are not exempted.</p><p style="text-align: left;">I find it supremely interesting that Socrates of Constantinople says about the origins. He believes the Apostles did not ordain any festivals at all, but left things up to people to make up their own minds. Truly, that makes a great amount of sense to me.<br />Socrates begins chapter 22 of book 5 with a review from the Bible of the Old Covenant law being done away, then he speculates on the origins of Easter in this way:</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"Wherefore, inasmuch as men love festivals, because they afford them cessation from labor: each individual in every place, according to his own pleasure, has by a prevalent custom celebrated the memory of the saving passion. The Savior and his apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast: nor do the Gospels and apostles threaten us with any penalty, punishment, or curse for the neglect of it, as the Mosaic law does the Jews. It is merely for the sake of historical accuracy, and for the reproach of the Jews, because they polluted themselves with blood on their very feasts, that it is recorded in the Gospels that our Savior suffered in the days of `unleavened bread.' The aim of the apostles was not to appoint festival days, but to teach a righteous life and piety. And it seems to me that just as many other customs have been established in individual localities according to usage. So also the feast of Easter came to be observed in each place according to the individual peculiarities of the peoples inasmuch as none of the apostles legislated on the matter. And that the observance originated not by legislation, but as a custom the facts themselves indicate."<br />-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "<i>Church History</i>", Book V, chapter XXII</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">And that, out of all the things I've read, makes the most sense to me given what else I've read about this and other things in other places. I think the two are compatible, though. I could speculate the <i>original</i> Apostles did keep a certain tradition of observing the Lord's Supper on the 14th of Nissan and passed it on, but not as a matter of law or requirement of any kind. And that Peter and Paul did teach the Gentiles they were not required to observe anything on the 14th, but could observe on Easter Sunday if they wished, or not, and so they had a hand in starting the two. But nothing at all was required of either side. This view explains quite a bit in my mind, including how there were indeed more than only two traditions, how there is no set way to calculate anything, and how no one seemed to be able to appeal to anything but Apostolic tradition.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Until recently, I thought the controversy began purely due to calendar differences growing slowly between distant areas. I no longer believe that. The origin according to the historical documents we have is Apostolic. The calendar issues existed without a doubt, but were secondary. Perhaps the Apostles were attempting to solve a calendar-based issue in two different ways. Perhaps the Apostles, being Jews themselves, maintained a more Jewish tradition when with other Jewish converts, but not while they were with Gentile converts (GAL. 2: 11-13), which caused calendar issues. Perhaps the two traditions coexisted better before distance and time exaggerated certain calendar issues. Calendar issues do not appear to be the root cause of the difference, the cause is Apostolic, or perhaps a combination of Apostolic and free will, but certainly calendars and calculations made the debate worse and harder to settle.</p><p style="text-align: left;">I know some people will balk at the claim the Apostles taught both sides. I understand. However, I am only relating what the legitimate historical documents indeed say. I must go where they lead me. This is the historical record. Anything else is simply not the historical record. If you've read anything here on this blog at all, then you know we utterly reject Alexander Hislop as a legitimate source. His claims of paganism are empty and worthless.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME</b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>Anicetus and Polycarp</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">First, in "<i>Church History</i>" book IV chapter 24, Eusebius recounts a discussion between Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and Anicetus, Bishop of Rome. Judging from the time between when Anicetus was elected Bishop and when Polycarp died, this conversation had to be between 153-155 AD. This is quite early, and is our first hint of a dispute. Polycarp traveled to Rome to discuss it with Anicetus. Both men explain how they inherited their tradition. The entire arguments of of both men were based not on law or removal of law, nor on accusations of paganism, but on tradition. The two unsuccessfully tried to convince the other of who had the stronger tradition. In the end, they confirmed their mutual respect and decided to live together in peace. They even shared a Eucharistic meal together.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The next time the United Church of God tries to tell you Quartodecimans were true Christians and Romans were pagans, remind them the two lived in peace and shared the Eucharist together. Or when they try to pin Easter Sunday on events after the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-136 AD), remind them that Irenaeus, whom they cite, specifically mentioned Bishops of Rome by name going back to 115 AD, which was prior to Bar Kohkba.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>Start of Local Synods</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">The timing in this next phase in the dispute seems to last form the 150s to the 190s AD, and beyond. Eusebius, in "<i>Church History</i>" book IV chapter 23, briefly mentions local synods being held in areas such as Rome, Caesarea, Jerusalem, Gaul, Pontus, and Corinth. He recounts that the decision of these synods were in favor of Easter Sunday.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><blockquote>"Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day [Sunday], and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only."<br />-Eusebius "<i>Church History</i>", book V, chapter 23</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">From this we know the Council of Nicaea was not even remotely the first time Christians gathered to debate the issue. We also know this is a short list. In the next section, we will see the infamous fight between Victor and Polycrates. Hidden in there is another mention of a local synod in Asia Minor, called upon Victor's request. How many other areas had synods which were left unmentioned? We will never know for certain, but we know it wasn't zero. It seems as if Eusebius' list was meant to convey the idea that synods were happening all around the Empire.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The 1975 booklet "Seven Proofs of God's True Church" page 53, Garner Ted Armstrong says:</p><blockquote>"Study into the 'Quartodeciman' controversy some time. See how it finally required pressure from the state to finally force people to quit keeping Passover on the 14th of Nissan..."</blockquote><p style="text-align: left;">When we study into the history as Garner Ted suggested, we see history doesn't quite match the claims of "God's True Church". This stopped surprising me long ago.<br />The local areas were deciding for themselves, and the vast majority were deciding in favor of Sunday.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>Polycrates and Victor</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">Next, in "<i>Church History</i>" book V, chapters 23-25, Eusebius recounts another important discussion, this time between Polycrates the Bishop of Ephesus and Victor the Bishop of Rome. Judging from the time between when Victor was elected Bishop and when Polycrates died, this conversation had to be between 189 and 196 AD. Eusebius dedicates three whole chapters to this debate, which I will summarize.</p><p style="text-align: left;">From previous paragraphs, we can see Victor wrote to Polycrates to inform him of the decisions of the local counsels and to ask him to assemble his own counsel in Asia Minor. The church leaders in the region were assembled as requested to discuss the issue and the decision came down in favor of the Quartodeciman view. Polycrates wrote back to Victor about their decision. Polycrates, in a rather defiant tone, lays out his case that the Apostles John and Philip taught them, and many church leaders kept that tradition. They decided they were following God and so would continue observing as they had. Victor clearly took offense and responded by excommunicating everyone from the Quartodeciman side of the issue. The majority of the church reacted against Victor's decision, including those who sided with Victor on timing.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Something clearly happened that went unreported by Eusebius. This wasn't Victor and Polycrates' first conversation. Polycrates called the local counsel as Victor asked him to, so there had to have been earlier conversations. The tone in Polycrates' two phrases "<i>I ... am not affrighted by terrifying words</i>" and "<i>we ought to obey God rather than man</i>" leads me to believe he felt pressured by Victor to come to the same conclusion everyone else had. That's my opinion. We have no way to verify it. Polycrates' seemed somewhat passive aggressive. Passive aggression is still aggression. By Victor's harsh response, there must be some layering here. I tend to suspect this was not just Victor lashing out after being slighted. Was Victor grieved the Asians purposefully did not come into unity with the rest of the church? Was Victor angry about Marcionite heretics rising up around the world, including in Italy, and taking it out on Polycrates? There is no telling. We are missing critical information here. I do not agree with Victor's response. But I feel they were <u>both</u> wrong, not just Victor. The rest of the church reacted to Victor as well. You might think the reaction was mainly due to Victor not having the authority to act as he did. From what I can tell, that was not the case. The tone was unity and peace, not authority.</p><p style="text-align: left;">As a brief aside, you will read how this was Rome's first attempt to assert authority over other churches. That is absolutely not true. Examples can be given of other churches looking to Rome to make decisions well before this. Polycrates did call his local synod at Victor's request, after all. Don't mistake me for trying to cheerlead a Pope. I am not. I am just relating historical facts to clear up misconceptions. But I digress.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Eusebius then quotes from a letter by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, to Victor. Irenaeus laid out the case for both sides, emphasized how the church had always lived in peace about this issue, pointed out how no one was excommunicated over it before then - even providing a list of Bishops of Rome who lived at peace with the Quartodecimans, and pleaded for Victor to relent.<br />Irenaeus was born in Smyrna and was a disciple of Polycarp. This means he grew up a Quartodeciman. He had since become the Bishop of Lyon (France). We can tell from various sources that Irenaeus was no longer a practicing Quartodeciman. Therefore, he lived under both traditions at one point. If anyone was capable of understanding both sides it was him. (I can relate.)</p><p style="text-align: left;">In theory, Victor relented - but we don't know that because that's missing information, too. And the debate went on.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>Council of Nicaea</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">Finally, the issue left to fester over the next century until we get to the reign of Constantine the Great. According to Eusebius, in "<i>Life of Constantine</i>" book III, before Nicaea, Constantine sent out letters to church leaders in several areas imploring them to settle the issue (which was doomed to fail, since they had been trying to settle the issue for two centuries already).<br />All who to paint Constantine as some strong man forcing one opinion on the church seem to never mention this. I am sure you can see for yourself why that is. Constantine didn't care either way what they chose. He just wanted the issue settled because peace in the church meant peace in the empire.</p><p style="text-align: left;">When that naturally failed, he called the Council to make leaders from all areas sit down together and work it out. He chose a location in Quartodeciman territory that was central for everyone. He paid their travel expenses plus room and board. He let them debate and decide on their own. He was not afforded a vote. When the bishops had finally decided - in favor of Sunday - he enforced their decisions.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Here is what Socrates of Constantinople, also called Scholasticus, says about those who attended:</p><p></p><blockquote>'Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were convened. And one sacred edifice, dilated as it were by God, contained within it on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phœnicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was also present, neither was the Scythian absent from this assemblage. Pontus also and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia, supplied those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there met there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even those who dwelt still further away than these, and the most celebrated of the Spaniards himself took his seat among the rest. The prelate of the imperial city was absent on account of age; but some of his presbyters were present and filled his place."<br />-Socrates of Constantinople (Scholasticus), "Church History", Book I, chapter 8</blockquote><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Understand, the primary topic of the Council was an issue that started in Alexandria over the nature of Jesus - the heresy of Arius. The details of Pascha were quite secondary at the Council. Nicaea was not called over Pascha, but if you're going to be gathering and making decisions, why not settle Pascha too?</p><p style="text-align: left;">This was not Constantine trying to force his Easter opinions on the church. Constantine was there, but could not vote. Constantine didn't even personally follow all of the decisions of the Council. Constantine is reported to have sided with Arius on the nature of Jesus, and retained that opinion until much later in life. How can Nicaea be Constantine forcing his opinions on the church when he apparently did not agree with all of the decisions of the Council? It cannot. If you know anything about Constantine, you know he liked to play it safe. He wasn't even baptized until he knew he was dying, just to make sure all his sins would be covered. He wasn't given to taking extreme positions on religious particulars. It really is a baseless accusation to blame Easter on him. That whole canard really needs to be ended. It's dishonest.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Armstrong would have us believe this was all the doings of those dastardly Catholics who were up to no good again, forcing the innocent and godly Passover-keepers to bow to their will. That is a serious mischaracterization. First, as stated earlier, the traditional dating was <i>already</i> well established in most areas. Rome had its own local synod. Second, every bishop voted. If people have power when they can vote to elect a government, then the same holds true here. Losing a vote is not the same as being oppressed. Third, the Pope wasn’t even at the Council of Nicaea. Eusebius states the Bishop of Rome didn't attend due to his "extreme old age" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", book III, chapter 7), so he sent two representatives to be there in his place - Vitus and Vincent. Two representatives out of an estimated 318 Bishops (the exact number of Bishops present is unknown and various numbers were given). Fourth, records indicate the delegates in attendance were mostly from the <u>East</u>. Nicaea was in Quartodeciman territory after all, naturally it would be weighted in their favor. And finally, delegates from Persia and other areas outside the Roman Empire came as well. They could not be pressured by the Pope or Constantine. What shall people say about them?</p><p style="text-align: left;"><u>After Nicaea</u></p><p style="text-align: left;">Nicaea was a great effort, but in the end it was not entirely effective. Regardless of what the Bishops agreed to on any given topic, people continued to do what they pleased, regardless. It wouldn't be another century until a second ecumenical Council would have to be called to decide certain issues a again. The Quartodeciman practices would linger another century, mainly in Persia, until they eventually died out on their own. So much for the story you've heard about being being forced to give up their ways.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The Medieval Sourcebook has a detailed and mercifully brief article on the specifics of how Easter timing played out going forward, called "<a href="https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/const1-easter.asp" target="_blank">Excursus On The Subsequent History of the Easter Question</a>". Nicaea may have created a formula for how to calculate Easter Sunday, but they didn't say what calendar to use. Here we go with the calendar issues again<br />Rome and Alexandria had back and forth issues with calculating Easter because they calculated moon phases differently. This went on and on until 525 AD when Dionysius Exeguus (the guy who invented "AD" and "BC"), built on an earlier work from Anatolius of Laodicea (aka Anatolius of Alexandria) and came up with a working system of 19-year Easter time cycles (wow does that ever sound familiar) that satisfied both sides. The new calculations would catch on slowly across the West, until about the year 729 AD when the whole British isles finally accepted them. At long last, there would be peace.</p><p style="text-align: left;">...Or not.<br />Technically, troubles continue until this very day, since the Catholics/Protestants and Greek Orthodox have two entirely different calendars and celebrate Easter almost always at different times. Hope for a solution seems to be possible, according to the article "<a href="https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252851/why-catholics-and-orthodox-might-once-again-celebrate-easter-on-the-same-date" target="_blank">Why Catholics and Orthodox might once again celebrate Easter on the same date</a>" on CatholicNewsAgency, which says,<br /></p><blockquote>"According to an earlier report by Vatican News, [Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople] supports such a common date to be set for the year 2025, which will mark the 1,700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea."</blockquote>I wouldn't hold my breath, though.<p></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><p style="text-align: left;">That sums up the development of the issue over time. I only have so much space and cannot get overly detailed about it, but that is the summary of the major points. If you hear anything wildly divergent from what you've read here, you can be assured those claims are suspect at best.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">As I said at the start, there is so much more to this one topic. I chose to cover what I did, which I feel are the basics, because these things were most relevant to my own history in Armstrongism. I had to read quite a bit about this topic. It's not like you just read Eusebius and you're done. There are rabbit holes inside the rabbit holes. I seriously have fifteen tabs open in just one of my three web browsers right this minute, all with pages on this topic.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Having come from an Armstrongist background, I found many things to be challenging to what I <i>thought</i> I knew. Challenging because so many things I <i>thought</i> I knew were wrong. Wrong because I had relied on thoroughly biased material from Armstrongists. I would never have known this had I not done what Garner Ted Armstrong suggested and researched the topic myself.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Today we've seen that both Quartodeciman and traditional practices were Apostolic, that the local regions held synods to decide for themselves well before Nicaea, that Quartodecimans were in the minority by choice of local regions, and that this was not due to pressure from the Pope or Constantine. The only example of pressure from the Bishop of Rome was met with pressure from the other Bishops.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Many will be surprised about the fasting. Lent is not some foreign pagan thing imported into Christianity in later years. It was there from the start, developing organically from Christian piety towards Jesus' betrayal and death. Everyone had a Lentin fast, even the Quartodecimans. If one wishes to claim some ancestry from the Quartodecimans, it follows that one also adopts a Lentin fast.</p><p style="text-align: left;">I bet you're wondering who was right in this debate, the Quartodecimans or the traditional Christians? In short: they were <u>both</u> right!<br />Life is messy. This was not by any means the first time the church dealt with two opinions on one topic (ACT. 15: 6-29; 21: 17-25 and ROM 14: 1-13). These are growing pains of a church leaving its infancy. Both groups were taught by Apostles from the start and both groups had long lists of illustrious names who agreed with them. They tried living in peace, but the years were not kind to that. The difference made for poor unity, and they disputed for centuries. They tried peace, pressure, councils, contention, and plain old ignoring it and hoping it would go away ... nothing worked. The dispute needed to be settled before it led to schism. I for one am persuaded it was necessary and a good idea to try and settle it at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.<br />Even thought that didn't really settle it.</p><p style="text-align: left;">Remember at the start of this article when I said, "I find it curious that many of those who try to ally with the Quartodecimans don't really understand them"? In my next post "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/03/quartodecimans-were-they-law-keepers.html" target="_blank">Quartodecimans - Were They Law-Keepers?</a>", we will dig into actual details and investigate the beliefs of the Quartodecimans. I think you will find the reality quite interesting. It was for me!</p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;">************</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-67712894344722511712024-02-21T07:24:00.013-05:002024-02-27T16:47:38.933-05:00Does John 11 Define A Biblical Day?<div style="text-align: left;">
<p></p><blockquote>(JON. 11: 8-9) 8 The disciples said to Him, “Rabbi, lately the Jews sought to stone You, and are You going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world."</blockquote><p></p><p>Many are the times when I have heard someone point to John 11: 9 in an attempt to support a 72-hour length of time for the phrase "three days and three nights" in Matthew 12: 40. "Jesus comes right out and tells us precisely how long a day is," they say, "so we know He had to be 72-hours in the tomb." Are they right about that? Is it truly appropriate to take "are there not twelve hours in the day" and apply that to the phrase "three days and three nights"? Or, are there other mitigating factors we should be aware of before we go this route?</p><p>Let's just start off by putting this out there - it is an undeniable fact that the ancient Hebrews (and most of the surrounding cultures besides) did recognize twelve hours in a day and twelve hours in a night, making twenty-four hours altogether. Hebrews apparently got this from the Babylonians, who got it from the Egyptians. Nothing at all that I say here should be understood as disputing or taking away from that fact. It is true.</p><p>Does that mean the game is over? Set and match? Let's investigate this further.</p><p><b>IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS</b></p><p>Their day had twenty-four hours just as much as ours does. But is it true we always mean a twelve or a twenty-four hour period every single time we say the word <i>day</i>? No. We can use words in colloquial ways. When we use a word in a non-literal sense, it is called an <i>idiom</i>.</p><p>Webster's first definition of idiom is:</p><p></p><blockquote>"1. An expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way)"<br />-Mirriam-Webster, "Idiom", https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idiom</blockquote><p></p><p>The meaning of an idiom cannot be derived from its elements. In other words, you say one thing but mean something else entirely. Do you know what the phrase "tickling the ivories" means? It means playing the piano. Every culture has idioms, and the Bible is full of them.<br />Perhaps the most well known is this:</p><p></p><blockquote>(PRO. 7: 2) Keep my commands and live, And my law as <b>the apple of your eye</b>.</blockquote><p></p><p>Is there an apple in your eye? No. Not literally. There is not a Macintosh inside your eye fluid or a Red Delicious in the reflection. Here's a fun fact for you - "apple of your eye" is an English idiom, not a Hebrew one. The literal translation is "little man of the eye". It just means your pupil.<br />Here is another:</p><p></p><blockquote>(JOB. 19: 20) My bone clings to my skin and to my flesh, and I have escaped <b>by the skin of my teeth</b>.</blockquote><p></p><p>Are your teeth covered in flesh? No. Not literally. A completely other understanding is hiding in that phrase.<br />Here is an example we all know:</p><p></p><blockquote>(GEN. 4: 1a) Now Adam <b>knew</b> Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain...</blockquote><p></p><p>You know exactly what is really meant when the Bible says "knew". They say it, but they don't say it. Idioms are very handy for that sort of application.<br />Here is an example from the very verse we focus on most:</p><p></p><blockquote>(MAT. 12: 40) 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights <b>in the heart of the earth</b>.</blockquote><p></p><p>Jesus was placed inside the literal beating heart within the cardio-vascular system of the earth? No. An idiom is right here in exact same verse which people demand is the most literal of all.<br />Let's do just one more:</p><p></p><blockquote>(ISA. 2: 12) For <b>the day of the Lord</b> of hosts shall come upon everything proud and lofty, upon everything lifted up - and it shall be brought low -</blockquote><p></p><p>I chose this example specifically because it uses the word <i>day</i> in a way that is neither twelve nor twenty-four hours. Taken all together, the many examples of the phrase "day of the Lord" will paint a very clear picture that this is a period of time far beyond a single day. The word <i>day</i> is not always literal, dear reader. It just isn't.</p><p>These are all examples of non-literal uses of words and phrases. They are idiomatic expressions. </p><p>Today, we can use the word <i>day</i> every bit as literally or idiomatically as anyone else. Take for example the phrase "in my day." It doesn't mean, "In my literal twelve or twenty-four hour period of time." It means, roughly, "Back when I was in my prime." For another example, "Have a nice day!" Do we intend people only to have twelve nice hours, or for their period of niceness to end at sunset? No. Not at all. It was never intended to be chronologically specific. Sometimes language can just be unspecific. It's one of the hardest parts of literal translations of the Bible, and why we sometimes need thought-for-thought translations.</p><p>A person went to a job interview at 3 o'clock PM. They did well and got the job. The hiring manager said, "You're hired. You start in two days." Two days later, the employee arrived precisely at 3 o'clock PM. The manager saw the person walking in, and angrily said, "What is the meaning of coming here at this hour? Turn right back around and go home. You're fired!"<br />Why? The employee arrived exactly forty-eight hours later, didn't they? But starting time was 8 o'clock AM, not 3 o'clock PM. When the manager said, "in two days," their intent was <i>at the appropriate hour on the second day</i>. It is still the case, even in our mathematically and chronologically meticulous day and age, that <i>day</i> is not always meant to be literally twelve or twenty-four hours.</p><p>A minute has sixty seconds, does it not? Must it follow that every time we use the word <i>minute</i> it only refers to a literal sixty-second period of time? No. For example, we say "a hot minute." When things get hot, they expand. A hot minute is a completely inexact period of time that is longer than a minute. It has no specific meaning at all. It's the same when we exclaim, "Give me a minute!" We don't mean to say, "Give me precisely sixty seconds because that's the definition of a minute." No. We just need more time. It doesn't matter how much time, precisely, just however much more it takes to finish the task at hand.</p><p>Why waste so many words on this simple concept? Two reasons. First, to show that words with specific meanings like <i>day</i> can be idiomatic under the right circumstances. Second, because I intend to demonstrate an inconsistency. It is the tendency of some people to apply a literal meaning to <i>day</i> when they want to force the length of Jesus' interment to be precisely 72-hours. They will go right back to defining a day loosely elsewhere. Let's see that.</p><p><b>CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT</b></p><p>As I pointed out in my article "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" target="_blank">Three Days and Three Nights</a>", the only verse in the New Testament that uses the phrase “three days and three nights” is Matthew 12 verse 40. There are <u>twenty</u> other places where the length of Jesus interment was described. In all of these twenty other instances, none of them repeat Matthew 12: 40. Here is how they play out in the NKJV:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The third day" 11 times.</li><li>"In three days" 5 times.</li><li>"After three days" 2 times.</li><li>"On the third day" 1 time.</li><li>"Within three days" 1 time.</li></ul><p></p><p>There is no possible way <u>all</u> of these can be taken literally. All twenty-one instances (these 20 plus Matthew 12: 40) speak of one and the same event. One event that played out one way descried with six different phrases. They cannot all be literal. Every single person who just set John 11: 9 as their standard to define <i>day</i> as exactly a twelve or twenty-four hour period of time will now abandon that standard for most if not all of these other phrases.</p><p>If someone, unwisely, decides not to abandon their literal standard, they cause a terrible issue. Let's see that. Let's replace the word <i>day</i> with <i>twelve-hour period</i>.</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>The</b> third twelve-hour period.</li><li><b>In</b> three twelve-hour periods.</li><li><b>After</b> three twelve hour periods.</li><li><b>On</b> the third twelve hour period.</li><li><b>Within</b> three twelve hour periods.</li></ul><div>Do you see the problem caused? The, in, after, on, within... creates several different resurrection times. If we insist on a strict literal interpretation, we turn the Bible into an inconsistent mess. No one involved agreed on the length. Not even Jesus Himself!</div><p>Of those, if we only look at what Jesus said, we see: "the third day" 8 times, "in three days" 1 time, and "after three days" 1 time. One man speaking of His own resurrection in four different ways (these three plus "three days and three nights"). When we force a literal definition onto the word <i>day</i>, we see only inconsistency in the words that came from Jesus' own mouth.</p><p>There is but one way to solve this issue: they all mean the exact same thing and <i>day</i> is <u>not</u> meant to be taken as a literal twelve or twenty-four hours in <b>any</b> of them. Not even in "three days and three nights".</p><p><b>EMPTY ASSERTIONS AND PREDETERMINED CONCLUSIONS</b></p><p>It seems we have an option. I have shown you why I think <i>day</i> should not be literal. Now we need to ask, what evidence is there to support applying a literal definition to "three days and three nights"?</p><p>Please supply a reason why we should. We need some kind of legitimate, biblical reason, not just, "Because it suits our desired outcome of Jesus not dying on a Friday." Demanding a certain definition without plotting out support for it makes it just that - a baseless assertion. If this were some petty point, nobody would really care. But it's not. This is a premier claim for some people, and they use it to accuse billions of other Christians of being pagans. Evidence for something this important is required.</p><p>Having spent decades in a church that taught me to believe it should be literal, and having read thousands of articles and booklets over the years, and having reviewed many here at ABD, we have yet to see any particularly convincing evidence. No sermon from any minister, nor article from any author I have ever read or reviewed, has given any convincing reason why we should take that phrase literally. It is just assumed we should. So, I went to look for my own evidence. I went over in my article "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" target="_blank">Three Days and Three Nights</a>" how <b>there is no other biblical reason</b>. In fact, there are several legitimate biblical reasons why it <i><u>should not</u></i> be defined literally. "Three days and three nights" is a known and quite ancient idiom.</p><p>Why is "three days and three nights" held as the gold standard, but those twenty other utterances are shoved aside? I will tell you why. Because the claim of 72-hours in the tomb absolutely relies on it. It is necessary in order to get the result they went looking for in the first place.<br />But, as we hope you have seen, there is no good reason to take the phrase literally. There is no good reason to showcase it to the exclusion of the others. Therefore, "three days and three nights" is simply a convenient means to an predetermined end. It is a conclusion looking for support.</p><p>Predetermined conclusions are not a very good thing. You know how scientific research is suspect when it has been funded by a special interest? It's practically the same thing here. Does that mean it is wrong? No, not necessarily. But it makes peer review more important. What happens when we peer review the 72-hour assertion in the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet? As I said, it comes up completely unsupported. We have a desired outcome looking for evidence and suppressing anything that disagrees.</p><p>One strict definition for <i>day</i> is used in one place, and another loose definition is used in twenty other places. One verse is emphasized, others are shoved aside. The <i>modern</i> way to count time exclusively is used, and the way Hebrews count time inclusively is ignored. The demonstrably false claims of Alexander Hislop are promoted, and the historically documented ideas of the Pharisees and the early church are dismissed. The 12-hour definition of <i>day</i> is insisted upon in one verse, and the words sabbaton and prosabbaton used by Matthew and Mark are redefined out of existence.</p><p>Did I lose you there? I am referring to topics covered in other articles. See our articles "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" target="_blank">Three Days and Three Nights</a>", "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-sabbaths-of-matthew-28.html" target="_blank">The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28</a>", and "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/04/easter-faq.html" target="_blank">Easter FAQ</a>" for more.</p><p>There really is nothing whatsoever to support the conclusion. What some people are doing with John 11: 9 is neither intellectually honest nor consistent.</p><p><b>THREE DAYS IS FOUR DAYS?</b></p><p>I assure you, dear reader, that even after 14 years, we are still searching the topic, trying to be as even-handed in everything as we can. Perhaps we have missed something. Perhaps someone noticed some new detail everyone else overlooked. We have not come across anything that pursuades us to change our minds.<br />That isn't to say we haven't seen new ideas. There are some. For example, there are people out there saying "the third day" is actually <b>four</b> days.</p><p>To explain, let's turn to the first chapter of the Gospel of John.<br />Some of John the Baptist's disciples are meeting Jesus for the first time and being called to follow Him, then they head together to Cana for the wedding where Jesus turns water into wine. There is a time progression described here that we need to see.</p><p>John 1: 29 says, "on the next day," then v.35 says, "again, the next day," then v.43 says, "the following day," and finally we come to John 2: 1 which says, "on the third day". Did you catch that? Day, day, day, third day. ??<br />Some people look at that and conclude, "John says 'on the third day' when it was actually the fourth day, so 'third day' is a phrase that refers to the fourth day."<br /></p><p>You might be saying, "Huh. I never noticed that before. That's really interesting." If so, that's fine. But please follow that up with, "I am going to go see if there is any other example anywhere within the Bible or without where 'the third day' indicates a fourth day, and if not, this conclusion is merely a simple misunderstanding which needs to be clarified."</p><p>There are several examples showing this is not how the Bible uses the phrase "third day". The Hebrews counted inclusively. The phrase "third day" is easily recognizable as being equivalent to saying 'day after tomorrow' (e.g., EXO. 19: 10-11; HOS. 5: 2). You can even find an example of "fourth day", where the timeline is meticulously laid out and there is no doubt that four days are involved (ACT. 10 all). In all of the Bible commentaries I dug through, none agreed that "third day" can be understood as "fourth day". In all the oldest and most reliable extra-biblical sources I read, I found no hint of support. So, we have <u>no</u> examples within the Bible or outside of it to support the claim that <i>third day </i>means<i> fourth day</i>.</p><p>It doesn't even make sense chronologically.</p><p>The distance between where John was baptizing in the Jordan in Judea, somewhere due west of Jericho, and Cana of Galilee where the wedding was, is roughly 60 miles in a perfectly straight line (verified on Google Maps). If you walk at a steady 4 miles per hour, it would take 15 hours. The terrain is rough, and Samaria lay in between the two. Jews would never go into Samaria unless they absolutely had to. The Bible makes no mention of it. Some time later, when Jesus did go through Samaria, the Apostles protested strongly. Clearly, this was not something they were accustomed to doing. We can reasonably assume they went around at this point. This means they would have to first go east into the Decapolis to go north and then west into Galilee. Your 60-mile trek just got much longer. The only way that journey could have been made in one day is by purchasing transportation, which Jesus was not accustomed to doing.</p></div><div style="text-align: left;">One cannot simply walk from the Jordan River on day three to Cana on day four. That interpretation is prohibitively difficult. So, I feel justified in rejecting it.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><p>There are four explanations for John's choice of words:<br /></p><ol><li>John is referring to Tuesday, which was called 'the third day'.</li><li>John starts the count at John 1: 35 where Jesus first gains a following.</li><li>John means it had been three days since John 1: 43 where Jesus decides to go to Galilee.</li><li>John means it is the third day since Jesus entered the area of Cana.</li></ol></div><div style="text-align: left;">Options #1 and #2 are weak, and the hardest to accept since they are so arbitrary. Options #3 and #4 are strong. I feel the more reasonable of those is option #3. They left John the Baptists on day one, on foot, and arrived in the region of Cana on day three.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">There is no clear way to settle which is the correct option, but it is abundantly clear 'the third day' <u>cannot</u> be defined as<i> 'the fourth day'.</i> This is not only unsupported but contraindicated from the rest of the biblical and extra-biblical evidence. It is simply not a possible option.<br />Yet, someone is out there, right this minute, relying on it as part of their Biblical interpretation (in this case, the person making this argument wanted to support a Thursday crucifixion).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">These are the wild things we get when people start with a conclusion -- making the cherry-picked evidence go in the direction of the pre-determined conclusion, rather than allowing the total evidence to lead us to the reasonable conclusion. What we should be doing is letting the Bible interpret the Bible.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><p></p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p><p>Is a day defined as 12-hours in the New Testament? Yes, that is a possible option. We granted that at the start. But <u>must</u> that definition always apply to the word <i>day</i>? No. We demonstrated that. In fact, forcing a literal definition in every instance of <i>day</i> causes terrible issues for resurrection timing.<br />More importantly, does John 11: 9 define the meaning of Matthew 12: 40? Does it apply for "three days and three nights"? From what we have seen in this article and others, I say no.</p><p>If there is an option, we need a good reason <i>why</i> we should choose one or the other.</p><p>Those who argue Jesus was entombed for 72-hours make assertions without a compelling explanation why. We investigate the claims, and they keep coming up making the same mistakes over and over again. Their conclusion depends on proof-texting and too many other things I categorize as nothing shy of intellectual dishonesty.</p><p>As for the evidence we provide for our conclusion, aside what I have shown you here today, As Bereans Did has several articles where we lay our case out in detail. Some of them I have already mentioned. We invite you to our <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/p/faq.html" target="_blank">Categories</a> page where our articles are listed under the topic Easter.</p><p>All of the best evidence leads us to conclude the phrase "three days and three nights" is a very ancient and known idiom that was never meant to be understood as literally 72-hours. Choose exegeses over eisegesis!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-7262811183436864522024-02-14T21:28:00.007-05:002024-02-15T06:01:04.354-05:00Escaping Armstrongism - part II<div style="text-align: left;"><p>A few weeks ago, I asked how we could help you, our esteemed readers. The answer I got is, people want to know more about what it is like to exit. Having done that once, I believe I can oblige.</p><p>This request turns out to be more complicated than I anticipated. There are so many variables. What is the best way to approach things? I decided to approach it in more than one way. <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/02/escaping-armstrongism-part-i.html" target="_blank">In my last post</a>, I started this effort by telling the story of how I left. My hope is that someone will find hidden in there some nugget of help; something to relate to.</p><p>This time, I am going to tell the story of how life went <i>after</i> I left.</p><p><b>OUTSET</b></p><p>It was late summer 2008. It had been a highly traumatic roller coaster of a year. I had just exited Armstrongism after three decades. The exit process took 6 years, starting in 2002. My life was upside down and backward. My beloved prophecy was gone, the bedrock of doctrine was gone, the Apostle himself was gone, and even the weekly Sabbath was gone - all victims of what would become what I like to jokingly refer to as "the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet". By this, I mean a whole new process of studying to allow the truth to be what it is - where we take as neutral an approach as possible, weighing <u>all</u> the evidence to see what holds up and what gets destroyed in the process. The cons far outweighed the pros for those items. They had to go.</p><p>I was afraid and excited at the same time. Everything seemed to be in extremes. Both north and south, but with no equator. I was blogging to try to make sense of it all. The world was filled with options, but I didn't know which way to go. It was like being in a large and energetic city ...watching your ride drive off and leave you there.</p><p>The only thing I was still sure about was Jesus and the paganism inherent in mainstream Christianity.<br />Rather, the only thing I was <i>consciously aware</i> I was still sure about was Jesus and the paganism inherent in mainstream Christianity. I had been in Armstrongism for so long, I didn't realize there was more baggage.</p><p>When you exit, you don't leave everything behind. I would guess you don't even leave half of everything behind. You might <i>think</i> you have, but it's hiding inside you. It's invisible until we run into situations that make us aware. That isn't necessarily bad, but it can be. I wrote a post called "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2020/08/how-to-move-forward.html" target="_blank">How To Move Forward</a>" where I write about the dangers. </p><p>Learning about myself would be a recurring theme for the next several years of my life.</p><p><b>HALFWAY HOUSE</b></p><p>I was clearly going to need a new church. It was going to have to be something without all those unsightly pagan elements. It was going to have to be less authoritarian and not at all personality-centered. No more "God's appointed Apostle on earth" stuff. Catholicism was right out. Pentecostals? No way was I speaking in tongues. Out! Apostolic is basically the same as Pentecostal. Out. JW's was 100% out. Seventh Day Adventism seemed too personality-centered with their founder, so out. Not on your life was I about to go with some fringe Sacred Names cult, either. Totally the wrong direction. OUT! I needed to rethink this entire thing.</p><p>What I needed was something <i>like</i> Armstrongism, but not at all like Armstrongism. A place to avoid culture shock and buy some time while I wrapped my head around mainstream Christianity. A step-down detox. The only choice left in my area was the Church of God (Seventh Day). About whom I knew next to nothing save they kept the Sabbath and fired Herbert Armstrong.</p><p>I made a call to the local COG7 Minister. I was invited to attend the very next Sabbath. There was no interview, no home visit, no background check, no need to read material first, no correspondence course, none of that. Just show up and ...</p><p>... I honestly didn't know what.</p><p>The realization hit me. I had been doing <i>3 songs, opening prayer, sermonette, song, sermon, song, closing prayer, pot luck</i> for so long, it had just become secondhand nature. I took it completely for granted until this situation made me aware.</p><p>What do other churches do? Is there going to be a sermon? Will there be a pot luck? Will there be a sacrifice and golden calf? Will there be singing?<br />Oh no! Singing!!<br />I didn't know anyone else's songs! You want to feel like a stranger and an outsider in a church, try not knowing their songs. And nobody there knew "Blessed And Happy Is The Man".</p><p>You see where this is going? I will spare you the details about every time this happened. Let's just say my first service was very uncomfortable.<br />And then came the sermon.</p><p>It started out mild enough. Familiar language with familiar Biblical principals about goodness and virtue. I started hearing a word I wasn't accustomed to: Jesus. For some unknowable reason, we in Armstrongism always call Him "Christ" or sometimes "Jesus Christ". You will rarely ever hear Him called just "Jesus". Yet, there was that name. Do you know what that Minister said next? (Of course you don't, I haven't told you yet.) He said it didn't matter to the COG7 what denomination people went to, they are our brothers in Christ if they have faith in Jesus. Then he said we just need to share our faith in Jesus with everyone. <br />The what? So, I'm <u>not</u> supposed to condemn people who think differently than me? I'm in a church that is nice to other churches? Share my faith? Does not compute! (More hidden baggage.)<br />Then he said, "<i>Jesus Christ is the most amazing gift you could possibly receive. How could you keep such a gift to yourself? Share that gift with others. Share Christ!</i>"</p><p>And that, my dear reader, was the first time in my entire life I recall hearing the Gospel. I had to go to the COG7, to the <i>Sardis</i> church of all places, to hear the Gospel.</p><p>That joy cranked up to 11. I felt it crashing like waves. I had to fight to maintain my composure because I was about to start crying like a baby right there in front of these people and my kids and the heavenly host and everyone. (There is a little dust in my eye right now just thinking about it.) I really could have that direct relationship with Jesus, just as my friend said. Jesus was trying to love me. If only I would let Him. He was trying to give a relationship to me. All I had to do was accept it. I had been too busy trying to earn it all this time. How could this have been there all along?</p><p>I spoke to the Minister later that week and told him how his words affected me. He was happy to help. We talked about my past and about the differences between the COG7 and Armstrongism. It was nice.</p><p>Piece by piece, the New Covenant in the finished work of Jesus Christ was coming in and it was pushing out the deprecated Old Covenant that never applied to Gentiles in the first place.<br />Yeah, it was going to be a hard day when I left this place. I only wanted a halfway house until I could acclimate to being on the outside. If it wasn't for those remnants of the Old Covenant they kept, I would just stay put.</p><p><b>INSERT PURPOSE HERE</b></p><p>I found myself at somewhat of a crossroads. I had a blog, I had an inexhaustible topic, and I had a choice. What should I do with it?</p><p>I was blogging to make sense of everything I had been through. That started to change into blogging about the flaws of the old system. I put up posts about prophetic failures, and I had in my pocket several posts about tithing and meats so those started going up too. Then there were the posts about Ron Weinland. It was the heyday of the latest prophet in all of history. I knew Weinland, you see. He performed my wedding. He once made the congregation take a written test. He allowed people to stay or kicked them out based on the answers. He had pre-printed letters ready to go for the people he expected to evict. I was one of two men passing them out, so I handed mine to myself. I was out. He was trying to gain sole control of the church's money. He needed to get the church corporation to vote him that control, so he was rigging it to where only loyalists would be there to vote. He called me later to tell me he made a mistake and I was back in. Oh, thank you, m'Lord! Thank you! I knew what a snake he really is. He wasn't fooling me at all. I had so much material to work with!</p><p>Was that really what I wanted to do? Write blog posts about former Armstrong things? There were quite a few other former Armstrongist blogs already. Aside from the ones I mentioned in my last post, there was Seeker's blog, James Pate's blog, Red Fox's blog, Felix's blogs, Mike DDTFA's site, Purple Hymnal's many sites, just to name a few. All of them were speaking out. Most of these blogs worked together. Felix even gave me the broken chain icon I still use. And it was nice to see regular commentors on the blog, like Third Witness, Henrik Blunck, Biker Bob, Bill Hohmann, Corky, and Doug Becker, among others. Perhaps this was a new community for me to join? That would be nice. I could use a community of people who understand what I went through. Maybe even understand what I was about to go through. <br />But what kind of blog would I have? There were blogs that focused on one thing, blogs that focused on many things, blogs that were light, blogs that were deep, blogs from people who were in Pasadena and saw how the sausage was made, blogs from people who had never been to Pasadena in their lives, blogs from atheists, blogs from Christians, and even a blog from a Marxist. All formers. All working in their niche.</p><p>I kept up on my studies on topics of interest. It wasn't hard to find things to study. Topics practically walked up to me and introduced themselves. Every day there was some new discovery. I was reading books like "Sabbath in Christ" by Dale Ratzlaff, God rest his soul, and "Difficult Scriptures" by David Albert. Clearly, I wasn't by any means the only one to see what I was seeing. Every time I opened my Bible study software, I would notice new things. Perhaps the biggest surprise of all was that the entire book of Galatians, which I had read for decades, was surgically removed from every Bible on earth and replaced by an entirely different book. It was called Galatians, sure enough, but it was filled with this stuff about grace. It wasn't law-centered at all. In fact, it's <i>against</i> legalism. I suppose that's why we only read a couple verses at a time back in the old church.</p><p>We were woefully prepared by our Church of God teachers. "Poorly catechized" is how Catholics would say it. We were told precisely what to think, but never <i>how</i> to think, or how to study, or what good source material is versus bad. (That was by design.) I remember abusing Strong's Concordance to get my will out of the Bible. You open it, find your target word, pick the best fit from the list of options to achieve the desired result, then off you go to demonstrate how the Bible translators were wrong. I am sorry, dear reader, that is <u>not</u> how Strong's or the Bible or even how language itself works. Translators might not always agree with one another, but Hebrew and Greek are particularly structured languages. It only works in certain ways. Strong's has instructions right at the front. We ignored them. I for one never even read the instructions until this point. We only wanted what we wanted, so proof-texting and cherry-picking was a way of life. I needed to exorcise that demon. Why not help others to do the same! </p><p>I saw my niche. Someone needed to investigate the doctrines of the system, from a Christ-centered perspective. Investigate them, verify them, expose them if necessary. Showing my work step by step. I would help people by giving them access to different perspectives about the doctrines themselves, apart from the personalities. If Herbert Armstrong had only known how to study, per chance none of this would have ever happened in the first place. Oh, I might kneecap Weinland from time to time, or Meredith, or Flurry (they deserved it) but it wouldn't be about that. I wouldn't rely on the low road of Herbert Armstrong's personal failings. I would take the harder path of doctrine because I knew it could be done. Ratzlaff and Albert had proved it.</p><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>I took the one less traveled by,</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>And that has made all the difference.</i></div><p>I admit I did wonder what the people in my old congregation would think. I could tell one or two of them were visiting the blog. I didn't want them to hate me. I was already called a deceiver by one of my best friends (the guy from the truck incident). That didn't feel very good. It's nothing at all to brush off when some stranger shows up and starts running their mouth off because they have nothing of value to contribute. But these people were like family. Well, they used to be. I hadn't heard a single word from most of them in months. They didn't call. They didn't email. They didn't send a hello through an intermediary. I talked to one of them every day because I worked with him. They could have sent a message through him, but they didn't. I made certain to send email from time to time to my one friend who knew what I was up to at Pentecost. Otherwise, nothing.</p><p>When you leave a legalist church, you get marked. All communication stops. It isn't some gradual losing touch, it's fairly immediate. Jarring. Only the people who don't yet know what happened will still communicate, and only until they find out what happened. Then they call you a deceiver and never talk to you again. Even when you message them your condolences on the death of their wife, they still won't respond. It's quite devastating to some people where the church constitutes their entire social order. I knew a guy who got marked and couldn't find a character reference for his resume.</p><p>Not me, though. I had a family outside the church, a blog, a job, and a new church. I was going to be ok. Was I marked? Probably not officially. I was in a kinder, gentler group - but none the less legalist. Well, we would have only drifted apart anyway.</p><p>Could I blame them? If they left and I stayed, I wouldn't accept their new ideas. How could I expect them to accept mine? Especially now that I was actively disassembling theirs! I understood and accepted their distance. I hoped using the name xHWA would help obfuscate things and protect us from each other. Plus, I tried not to write anything that would give it away (in a way, I'm still doing that right now). </p><p><b>I'LL GET TO THAT LATER</b></p><p>Certain topics were too much for me to bear, and worst of them all was (ugh!) holidays. The shadow of days loomed large on my mind as the year drew on. I still wanted to hate them.</p><p>The COG7 does not keep annual holy days. They don't see them as being directly tied to the Ten Commandments at all, and therefore were a novel introduction by Herbert Armstrong. It was one of the many reasons he was fired. No holy days? No starving at Atonement? No unleavened bread (I'm still eating bread of affliction, though). No second tithe for Tabernacles, at the place where the Lord places His name down the road from the go kart track? I was onboard with that!<br />Yet, they don't observe holidays either. How odd. No special days at all. Sounded .. bland.</p><p>Halloween came around again. It had been my tradition that, annually, when October 31st at 5:50 PM arrived, I would turn all the lights off and head to the grocery store to shop slowly for an hour and a half. I wasn't ready for all that trick or treating. I had not studied Halloween at all. It was too soon. Too Samhain-ey. Too much else going on. And clearly, I was still terrified from the years of indoctrination. I didn't realize it, but I brought with me from Armstrongism the notion of "once pagan always pagan". In a word - fear. I brought fear with me. (More baggage.) That's what going to the store on Halloween is, you see. It's fear. And I had a bad case of it. <br />Maybe some other time, guys. I need some canned goods.</p><p>Seemed like a proper time to dig up my copy of Ralph Woodrow's book. I never finished reading it from earlier. Time to change that.</p><p>Ralph Woodrow was a hero of sorts to us Armstrongists. To know Ralph Woodrow, you need to know Alexander Hislop. Herbert Armstrong and his lackeys, like Herman Hoeh, relied heavily on the work of Alexander Hislop. If there was a saint outside of the system, it was Hislop. His word was taken for truth. Ralph Woodrow wrote his own book supporting everything Hislop said. That earned Woodrow the status of a venerable sub-saint. Not a demi-god, exactly. More like a "hero of old" status, like Hercules. He was not a Hislop, but he was quite highly respected. Well, Woodrow had since recanted everything he ever wrote in support of Hislop. He wrote a new book called "<i><a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/12/babylon-connection.html" target="_blank">The Babylon Connection</a></i>", pointing out quite clearly the extraordinary level of nonsense that was Hislop's "<i>The Two Babylons</i>". Hislop's material was industrial strength, weapons grade, laboratory-pure bovine scatology. All of it.</p><p>So, you're telling me, Mr. Woodrow, that not only are there entire swaths of the Bible that I've never seen before that disprove half of everything I held dear for most of my life, but there are books out there which have been available to me and the ministry which disprove the <i>other</i> half of everything I held dear for most of my life? <i>Yes</i>.</p><p>Ouch!!</p><p>Christmas was fast approaching. I had learned a little about myself from Halloween. I recognized now my fear of "once pagan always pagan" meant I was still indoctrinated. I wasn't sure what to do about that. By this point, I was distanced enough from regular attendance in Armstrongism that I was feeling a bit cheeky. Maybe taking a liberty would help. I went out and bought some decorations. It was only some silver candles and a couple faux-crystal snowflakes (the snowflakes are on my mantle right this minute). Norman Rockwell it was not. But at the time it felt bold! Here is what I wrote about Christmas in my post "<a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/12/god-is-love.html" target="_blank">God Is Love</a>":</p><p></p><blockquote>"Next week is Christmas 2008. I have been out of Armstrongism for about 4 months. I suppose this is as good a time of year as any to do some introspection. I don't personally keep Christmas (but I no longer fear it). Perhaps it's the years of indoctrination speaking. Or maybe I *gulp* agree with Armstrong on the origins of the day and it really does bother me. If my conscience is bothered by something, then I shouldn't do it. I know that in the COG7, Christmas is frowned upon. I support them in every way. God bless them and prosper them. But I will have my own relationship with my Savior, thank you. (Nor have they ever tried to dictate to me. It's really not like Armstrongism there!)"</blockquote><p></p><p>In that quote, you might see a bold, free, self-aware man being reasonable and level-headed about Christmas, blazing his own path in life. The truth is, inside I was highly conflicted. Notice how I had read through Woodrow yet still wondered if I agreed with Armstrong. How? Such is the way of the Armstrongist mindset. I would like to introduce myself. My name is cognitive dissonance.<br />Healing was clearly going to take time, courage, and effort.<br />Some <i>other</i> time, though. Not today.</p><p>I went to my mother's house and helped her set up her Christmas tree. It was such a bonding moment. I loved it! Made me feel like a kid again. But, when I went home, I was afraid. It was one thing to share memories at another person's house. It was another thing entirely to have that at my house. I was wondering if it was wrong of me to have those two faux-crystal snowflakes. WWJD? I was getting cold feet. Sometimes healing is two steps forward and one step back.</p><p>Seven years after this, a very good Armstrongist friend of mine called me. One of the Heretics Club guys. He hadn't contacted me in, oh, about seven years. I didn't even recognize his voice anymore. He said he loves me and supports me and believes in his heart I am a faithful and genuine Christian even still ...but please, whatever I do, <i>just don't keep Christmas</i>.<br />The important message that motivated this man (who loved me and whom I love to this very minute) to call me after so much time was, "Whatever you do, please just don't start keeping Christmas."<br />THAT is the power of our indoctrination against Christmas.<br />I appreciated his call for what it was. I knew it meant he cared. He genuinely meant well, and I thanked him for it. Haven't talked to him since.</p><p>That sentiment reflected who I was seven years earlier. In 2008, Christmas couldn't leave soon enough. I let it pass with barely a notice. Problem is, this was just delaying the inevitable. Other holidays were coming.</p><p><b>SPRINGTIME OF MY LIFE</b></p><p>I spent the winter pretty much the same way as I did the autumn - absorbing information, keeping an eye on who the latest 'Elijah for to come' was, and giving thanks for grace. I still had so much to learn. Aside from holidays, I hadn't tackled huge ideas like Trinity, church government, sanctification, soul sleep, the millennium, eucharist and transubstantiation, "true history of the true church", religious icons like the crucifix, how exactly to relate to the Old Covenant, etc. etc. etc. There were even mundane things to work through, like which Bible version I like best. Was the NIV really a cursed version written in the blood of sacrificed goats by a coven of pagans? <br />Another detail I needed to work through is precisely what is the real nature of Armstrongism. Is it a (come in close and I'll whisper this word into your ear) <i>cult</i> (gasp!) or not? I was heading toward a solid yes, based on what I was reading in a book about thought control by Lifton. That was a mighty big pill to swallow.</p><p>There are many things to endure when one makes such a large switch in religions like I was. As I said, you just don't realize until later. "My yoke is easy and my burden is light," still felt pretty good, don't get me wrong, but there comes a time when the high of conversion wears off and you begin to circle back around to the details once again. So many details!</p><p>The novelty of the COG7 was also wearing off. I would still recommend it to this day for people who are exiting Armstrongism! If you're leaving, consider going there. But it felt lacking. In my town, there is only a small congregation who were all related to one another and most of them were over 60. I actually started skipping services. I felt bad about that. I had a feeling my time there was coming to a close. But where was I going to go? I couldn't make up my mind.<br />No speaking in tongues, tho! Nope. Still can't get that movie "Cape Fear" out of my mind. Every time I think of speaking in tongues, I hear Robert DeNero yelling, "Counsellor!"</p><p>Meanwhile, I was building up a good friendship with Seeker from the As Bereans Did blog. We both seemed to have a healthy dislike of the Spokesman of the Two Witlesses. We discussed how we might partner our blogs to be more effective. We wanted to build a partnership with other blogs. We eventually changed our plan to having me come over and write for her at As Bereans Did. We would invite others to write with us.</p><p>I finished up my series on tithes and meats, said a few other words, and just like that, the era of having my own blog was over. My last post at Escaping Armstrongism and my first post here (entitled "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/03/hello-world.html" target="_blank">Hello World</a>" as a little computer programming joke) was March 16, 2009.</p><p>Easter was coming. I didn't like Cadbury cream eggs. I hated bunnies and eggs and pastels. I don't hate them anymore, but I still don't <i>like</i> them. OK! I still hate pastels. How many more times would I have to avoid these holidays? Yet, if I wasn't going to keep Passover like the Armstrongists do, remembering the Exodus, then what was I going to do? I was learning more about what the Gospel really is. I know there is no New Covenant requirement to keep any day. Yet I felt like it would be nice to do <i>something</i>. I could attend with the COG7 I suppose. I spoke to my brother. He is an Evangelical. He was attending a small non-denominational Christian Fellowship church at the time. He invited me to attend Easter services with him. I figured why not. I'm free to go wherever I want. I had never stepped foot in a Protestant church before, save for one wedding ceremony, so this was a good opportunity to see what it was like. And I'll get to learn more about Easter.</p><p>Remember all that stress I had over attending the COG7 for the first time? Multiply that. I chose COG7 because they were distantly related to Armstrongism. Evangelicalism was absolutely not. These were completely uncharted waters. Being with family was the only thing saving me.</p><p>What songs were these? Again, no "Blessed and Happy Is The Man". People were singing enthusiastically! We never did that. No burgundy hymnal, either. All the lyrics were on a big screen. Why do some people have their hands in the air? That really happens? I thought that was just for television. Why were some people randomly shouting 'amen' during the sermon? My hands are staying DOWN and I am NOT shouting amen under any circumstances. <br />It was so foreign. No, I was so foreign. This was their land. Yet, beyond all reason, something felt nice.</p><p>There was an "old rugged cross" at the front of the hall, draped in white. There was a singular focus in the messaging on Jesus and what He did for us. I didn't feel guilt. No one was bashing other religions as pagan, or arguing over 14th v 15th, or emphasizing how days start at sundown. Nothing in the message was designed to make me feel guilty. I didn't have to drum up a sense of sadness. There was no focus on Moses and the Israelites. This day was about victory and overcoming and glory and life. This day was about the Lord who lived and died and lives again. This was the culmination of everything the Old Testament hoped for. This was an expression of the grace and the Gospel I was coming to know.<br /></p><p>It was about Jesus from start to finish. This is how Christianity <i>should</i> be. The entire world felt like springtime. Who would have thought a holiday I was told is pagan could bring me to the foot of cross. I took it all in, and it brought me nearly to tears again.<br /></p><p>I gave myself permission to question Armstrong's prophecy and I was rewarded. I gave myself permission to question doctrine and I was rewarded. I asked God for the truth, HIS truth, and I was rewarded. I gave myself permission to participate in a religious holiday and I was rewarded. I found just as much value in it as I did in any of the holy days I kept in Armstrongism. And not a single rabbit or egg or Asherah Pole was involved. No weeping for Tammuz. I didn't gyrate even once. No one went outside to face the sun. Nobody baked cakes for the Queen of Heaven. Total silence on Nimrod.</p><p>The halfway house had done its job. I was finally free! I found a good home church. I could go anywhere I wanted, and I wanted to go to this church again next week.</p><p>The As Bereans Did team had one year to study Easter. I needed to get that gauntlet greased up. This was going to be a very big job.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b></p><p>I had been in one church for most of my life. The very prophecy that sucked me in was what helped set me on the path out. I learned to give myself permission to question. Turns out the prison had no walls. I had to abandon everything familiar and step out into the unknown. I got a blog. I spent several months in a rehab church. Now I was a Gentile Christian with freedom to go wherever I want and worship the Lord in Spirit and truth. I was finally free!</p><p>I still had much to wrestle with.</p><p>Why did God let this happen to me? Was I punished for some crime committed as a child? No, this was all my dad's fault. I was angry at him! My life was nothing like it would have been if only he had avoided this mess. How could he do this to his family? He was supposed to be wiser than this! Seeing large flaws in a parent can be traumatic. Wait. I did the same to my kids. It wasn't about my dad or his intelligence. Far smarter, richer, more powerful, more experienced, and more travelled people than I were sucked in. Tens of thousands of people were sucked in. It was indoctrination. The deceived don't know they are deceived. I could forgive my dad.</p><p>But why did God let this happen to me? Wait. Was there no good that came from it? Let's imagine I hadn't gone through this, I would have been a nominal Christian at best. Uninspired and uninspiring. Now I had a roller coaster ride of a life to tell about. I had a perspective you couldn't buy from Harvard. I had an in-depth knowledge of cult mindsets, the Old Testament, and best of all a deep appreciation for grace. I could really use this to help people. Using my powers for good instead of evil. I think that life gives all of us lemons. I would have had tribulations no matter what. "Pick your hard" as they say. This was mine. So, I made lemonade to give to weary people in the system. For free! And a few of those lemons I froze so I could throw them at the likes of Weinland and Flurry.<br /><br />Here is what I wrote in my article "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2020/08/how-to-move-forward.html" target="_blank">How To Move Forward</a>":</p><p></p><blockquote>"I advise you to take this with you - God allowed you to have the COG experience you did for a reason. What is that reason? Find the good, and be thankful to God for it. You can be miserable, or bitter, or fearful, or thankful. Be thankful! God has never abandoned you and it wasn't all for naught."</blockquote><p></p><p>I had many paths to choose from. I could do nothing. I could turn around and go backwards into the familiar (I've seen people do that). I could let it beat me, and end up dead or insane. I could give up and be an atheist. That's an easy road, and there are lots of people ready to help you walk it. We don't call Armstrongism <i>the atheist-making machine</i> for nothing! Or, I could insist on Jesus Christ and go into grace.</p><p>I insisted on Jesus Christ and pushed forward into grace.</p><p>And here you are, reading about some of the things you can expect if you're going through what I went through. Your experience will be different than mine in many ways. Hey! We're all unique. My hope in writing this is you would recognize some familiarity hidden in here somewhere and find some nugget of value in my story that might be of help to you. I don't know what that nugget will be. I don't know what help it will bring. Maybe it's just the knowledge that you're not all alone in this. I have a gut feeling that telling my story will help somebody move forward some day. I have learned over the past 15 years to follow that gut feeling. Whoever you are, you're welcome.</p><p><br /></p><p></p><div style="text-align: left;">As for the rest of those 15 years, you can read about my progress in the many posts here on As Bereans Did. God bless you, dear reader! May He guide you and guard you. May your path ultimately lead to Him. May you step into the New Covenant and find the freedom of the finished work of Jesus Christ!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: center;"><i>The Road goes ever on and on,</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Down from the door where it began.</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>Now far ahead the Road has gone,</i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><i>And I must follow, if I can...</i></div></div><p></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-41682609332126538922024-02-08T05:28:00.033-05:002024-02-14T21:29:57.454-05:00Escaping Armstrongism - part I<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>A few weeks ago, I asked how we could help you, our esteemed readers. The answer came back, people want to know more about what it is like to exit. Having done that once, I believe I can oblige.</p><p>There are several ways to approach this. Where to start? I have a sinking feeling this is going to take more than one post.<br />Nothing to it but to do it.</p><p>Maybe it would be helpful to start by telling you how I left. I've told parts of it here and there, but never really plotted it out. Not that you care about me, or that I hope to get you to care about my tale, but maybe there will be a helpful nugget in my story that you can relate to.</p><p>This is the highly abridged version of how I left.</p><p>In today's post, I am going to take you through the major events that led to my initial exit from thirty years of following Herbert Armstrong. In my next post, I will go over my experiences after I made my escape.</p><p><b>WHEN THE LEVEE BREAKS</b></p><p>One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone's exit has to be personal. Nobody leaves for an empty reason. No one leaves for someone else's reason. My reason to leave, like my reason for joining in the first place, was deeply personal, and it starts with prophecy.</p><p>I was big into prophecy when I was a young boy. Prophecy is what got me interested in Herbert Armstrong in the first place. My father was a tithe-paying Armstrongist in good standing. He was a stern man, and I wanted to make him proud. My mother was not an Armstrongist at all. So, my father was never allowed to force anything religious on his children. He spoke to the Ministry in the Worldwide Church of God, and they said to just let it play out on its own. The church was always odd that way. Regular people were actively discouraged from evangelizing. I suspect it had something to do with money. My father would talk to me about the church and prophecy, and I would eat that up. He had all the written material and watched The World Tomorrow regularly, so I ate that up, too. It was prophecy that got me into other topics, like Easter for example, and the Sabbath. The hook being set, I was reeled in like a fish. And like a fish, I had no idea what I was getting myself into.</p><p>As I got older, I would read through everything I could get my hands on (approved material only, of course). I wanted to crack that nut. I <u>needed</u> to fully understand prophecy. I could understand Revelation, I just knew it! That led me to gravitate towards others in the church who loved prophecy. Funny thing about prophecy nuts - none of us agree about much. And some of us didn't agree with Herbert Armstrong.</p><p>I was at the Feast of Tabernacles in 2002, in Pensacola, Florida. Hurricane Isadore was taking a tour of the Gulf of Mexico. A room full of friends had gathered to chat about nothing in particular. In my circle, the topic turned to ... yes, prophecy. Doesn't it always at the Feast, though? A friend of mine asked me if God could lie. (That was his ice breaker this year. He asked a lot of people that as a conversation starter.) Of course not! Why would He want to? We investigated it a while. He eventually asked if I believed the church could be wrong on prophecy. I didn't know how to answer that. Was this some kind of trick? I responded '<i>no</i>'. How could the true church be wrong on prophecy? It was no trick. He pointed out how he disagreed with a few things. Minor things. But minor or not, the idea that the church could legitimately be wrong on prophecy was major. That was the first crack in the dam.</p><p>Fast forward a few years. I was at the Feast in Phoenix, Arizona in 2007. When they say "dry heat" it doesn't mean it's not hot. It a lot hotter, only dry. Which makes 113F/45C and full sun better in precisely no way at all. A group of friends from all over the country had arranged to gather there. We would sneak off in the early morning hours before sunrise, with our Bibles and some coffee in hand, to discuss ... yes, prophecy. We jokingly called it "The Heretics Club". We would discuss our disagreements with official views on prophecy, and each other's. It was <i>mostly</i> peaceful. The key to being a prophecy nut and having friends was to disagree with other people gently. Some guys just don't get that. We tried to get along. There we were, gathered in secret to disagree with each other and discuss secrets. Secrets about why the church was wrong. And why shouldn't we? There were sermons and articles piling up about why Herbert Armstrong was wrong. Every minister I knew about was either saying he was off the mark, or insufficient, or that they were even greater than he (they're still doing it). How was that acceptable but what we were doing was wrong? Wrong, no. Effective, yes. For some reason, what we were doing affected me. Here is the difference - we gave ourselves permission. What felt so risky wasn't the disagreeing so much, it was the <i>permission</i> to disagree. That was the second crack in the dam.</p><p>We were careful to keep our disagreements solely on prophecy. We weren't <i>real</i> heretics. That was just a fun little name. We saw ourselves as protecting the truth, not undermining it. I remember walking out of a session one morning, looking at the vast horizon, wondering in awe at the natural beauty and grandeur of God's creation. What force would it take to create all that waste? As I looked out at the mesas, I felt small, exposed. It's in moments like that (and, oddly, in the shower) when I do my best thinking. Maybe it's because I get myself out of the way. Then it dawned on me - if the church was so wrong about prophecy, what's to say they aren't wrong on doctrine too? I ducked into a stairwell and looked around to make sure no one saw me have that thought. I kept my mouth shut tight about that! If I breathed out a whisper about it, I'd be exiled for certain. But, like prophecy, articles and sermons littered the floor about why the church was wrong on doctrinal issues. We were wrong on government, evangelism, the role of prophecy, the centrality of Christ, the calendar, the Last Great Day of Tabernacles, race relations, the list goes on and on. Everyone I knew expressed some sort of dissatisfaction with how things were done in the past. Why couldn't I? My novel contribution was simply to put these smaller bites together to see the whole meal. Since no one was going to allow me to question, I needed to give myself permission to question. As providence would have it, Harold Smith's sermon that morning was his attempt to get ahead of all the doctrinal drift and force everyone back on point. It was a real stinker of an obvious attempt to manipulate everyone. Coincidence? I think not. It seemed there might be something to this doctrine idea after all. That was the third crack in the dam.</p><p>I held my cards tight to my chest. No one needed to know what I was going through. Not fully, anyway. I had a friend in my local congregation who was a black sheep if ever there was one. Intelligent and searching, that man. God rest his soul. He wasn't afraid at all to disagree openly. He was a thorn in everyone's side and I enjoyed that about him. He had a soft and friendly face that made you want to forgive him, or else I'm sure he would have been put out years before. Upsetting the powers that be so many times has a way of changing one's perspective. It made him see himself as having a direct relationship with Jesus. No man could come between him and God (or put him out of the church). What a novel idea. I couldn't tell if it was true or arrogant, but it felt nice. Can I have a direct relationship with God, too? No Minister between us? Scary! But a key idea.<br />One average day, I was studying an average topic - the Sabbath and how it was magnified in the New Covenant - preparing for an average sermonette, when, all at once, I "got it". An incredible torrent of joy washed over me. Jesus Christ really did magnify <u>all things</u>! Our flaw was that we had defined "magnify" as "made harder". That was wrong. Joy was unusual and strange. Armstrongists don't have joy. We feel best when we're given a right good beating in the sermon. But this wasn't guilt, it was joy! And I didn't trust it one bit. I studied late into the night, trying to see if what I thought was real or some elaborate emotional deception. Was I falling away? Was this Satan? Other sinful things feel pretty good, so joy wasn't necessarily proof. I buried my face in church material. By the time I went to bed, I had managed to quench that joy and go back into believing Armstrong. Whew! A close call! That was the fourth crack in the dam.</p><p>I needed to know if we were right or wrong. <u>Really</u> know. I decided to do a little trial. I was going to take a doctrinal topic and put it to the test. I hated tithing. Nobody loves tithing. That would be my topic. I was going to study tithing every bit as hard as I studied prophecy, but I was going to be critical and try to poke holes in it. Devil's advocate. I think that is where the prototype As Bereans Did doctrinal gauntlet was first constructed. I would see for myself if the church was solid on doctrine. The doctrine went in, and wreckage came out. Did you know there's a difference between 10% and one-in-ten? Neither did I until that study. We were doing tithing very, very wrong. Highlights of that study are in the <a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/search/label/Tithing" target="_blank">ten articles on tithing</a> over at the old Escaping Armstrongism blog. Trust me, you wouldn't want to read the whole thing. It was 27 pages! That winter, I showed it to some close and respected friends. Try as they might, they couldn't disprove my thesis. It brought one of them to tears. He had sacrificed so much over the years. Tithing was his thing; his hill to die on. The thought of all that sacrifice being for nothing was too much for him to bear. He told me I was right, then apologized and said he could never read it again. Remember when I said 'nobody loves tithing'? Nobody but him. I loved that man. I still love that man. If he needed to bury this, then I say bury it. Burn it! But as for me, the church <i>could</i> be wrong on doctrine after all. That was the fifth crack in the dam.</p><p>What if it was only tithing? Logic dictates I had to try one more topic. One could be a fluke, but two is evidence. I had to know! I chose clean/unclean meats. Pork made me feel sick when I ate it. I always knew when some found its way into my food at a restaurant. I thought this would be a fair choice. Certain of my inevitable defeat and confidently awaiting my comfortable return to orthodox Armstrongism, I fired up the doctrinal gauntlet. Much to my disappointment and confusion, the doctrine went in and wreckage came out. Did you know God gave Noah every creeping thing to eat, and that includes lizards? Neither did I until that study. Highlights of that study are in the <a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/search/label/Food%20Laws" target="_blank">eleven articles on food laws</a> over at Escaping Armstrongism. You wouldn't want to read the full study of that one, either. It was 50 pages! That was the sixth crack in the dam.</p><p>This studying business was getting uncomfortable. I found the <i>Painful Truth</i>, <i>IronWolf</i>, <i>Ambassador Watch</i> and other websites with counter-information. Who knew an entire universe of information already existed? I wasn't quite ready for it all, but there I went all the same. I kept studying and I kept finding. Did you know we are commanded to travel <a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-times-in-year-part-1.html" target="_blank">three times a year</a> to the place where the Lord places His name, not just once? We were even doing holy days wrong. So many flaws! How could the one true church have been so wrong? Notice, I still believed it was the one true church. We had lots of doctrines that I thought were unique to us (because I hadn't yet found out they weren't unique to us), so we <u>had</u> to be one true. I was so sure of it, I tried convincing a co-worker of this foundational truth. A long series of discussions culminated in him agreeing to read "<i>The Incredible Human Potential</i>" by Herbert Armstrong. I gave him my copy. He didn't say anything about it for several days. I asked how he was doing. He mildly responded that he had certain disagreements with the material. I was flabbergasted. How can a person read this material and come away with disagreements? I found the book online and read it that very night. My review: what a complete load of steaming Holstein! How did I ever find that book to be convincing?? The next conversation I had with my co-worker went very differently than the last. I never gave him "<i>Mystery of the Ages</i>" like I planned. Turns out that was pretty bad, too. That was the seventh crack in the dam. A big one!</p><p>I travelled to Illinois to spend the Spring holy days with some very dear friends. It didn't hurt that the lady of the house, God rest her soul, made this wonderful stuff called "bread of affliction", which was unleavened (technically). It used egg whites to add air. Affliction never tasted so good! We were all later told by Harold Smith that this was cheating and we were not to whip air into unleavened bread. On the last day of Unleavened Bread, my friend and I drove to church together in a beat up old pickup truck. The drive was a bit long so I took the opportunity to mention some of what I had learned about holy days. I specifically mentioned the laws that required travelling to the place where the Lord places His name <a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/09/three-times-in-year-part-1.html" target="_blank">three times in the year</a>. My friend told me about how, in the beginning, Herbert Armstrong taught travel three times in the year, but he later changed it when things proved too difficult and expensive. That certainly was news to me. I chewed on that a little and responded it was necessary because it is the law. He didn't agree that was necessary. But it was the law, I complained. (The law! The law! Just not THAT law!) That was when he said the words I will never forget, "<i>Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity.</i>"</p><center style="text-align: left;"> And at that very second, the dam broke.</center><p></p><p></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>STOP THE WORLD, I WANT TO GET OFF</b></p><p>Something snapped. No, snapped isn't the right word. Shattered! Yes, something shattered. It was the strangest sensation. One second everything was normal, the next second everything - <u>everything</u> - was different. Do you know what a Dolly Zoom is? I imagine in the camera of my life it looked like a Dolly Zoom. A switch was flipped. I was in the same truck with the same person, but it was as if it were an entirely different truck and an entirely different person. The friend who I loved so dearly was a stranger to me. Where I had felt comfortable, now I felt trapped. I was taking a cab to a place I didn't want to go.</p><p>To understand why that phrase shattered my worldview, you need to understand all it entailed. It meant we didn't really care about law. Armstrong made everything up as he went, and changed what he liked. All that talk about the law being eternal and "not one jot or one tittle" was all just propaganda.</p><p>All the prophecies, all the tithes, all the holy days, all the magazines, booklets, and shows, all the sermons given or received, all the discussions, all the studies and debates, all the stands taken over the Sabbath, all the jobs lost, all the opportunities missed, all the ridicule endured, all the sacrifices, all the tithes paid, all the years up until then, and all the reasons for being at the Spring holy days, were all at once shattered by those eight words. I felt cold. I felt trapped. I needed out of that truck, out of that state, right the heck now!</p><p>It was everything I could do to keep my mouth from hanging open. I felt like a man trying to stay calm after a life-threatening injury. The building was on fire and I needed the wherewithal to carefully walk toward the exit. I tried my best to act like nothing happened. It's fine. Everything's fine. They must not suspect a thing. I went to church and I did the motions on auto pilot. I no longer felt like I was inside the story. I was outside looking in. Like a near death experience, I watched events from a third person perspective, somewhere removed just off screen. Packed into a meeting room at a hotel with a crowd of strangers I knew and loved. My seat safely in the back close to the exit door. I didn't sing. I had no idea what the sermon was about, I only knew it lasted an eternity. When services finished, I walked outside to the sight of the most beautiful Redbud trees I had ever seen. A purple so vibrant it almost hurt. That little touch of God's beauty helped ground me. I went to lunch afterward, deeply contemplating the laws against having someone work for you on the Sabbath. Herbert changed that law out of necessity, too. We were hypocrites. All of us! Not that day only, but always. I even stayed the night. But I no longer saw the point. <br />The church was wrong on doctrine. My brain had finally accepted it was all made up as we went along. This entire time, we all were just saying whatever we thought sounded good at the moment.</p><p><b>AFTERSHOCKS</b></p><p>I went home and studied as hard as I had ever studied before. I was fairly down and needed something positive to happen.</p><p>I did a lot of looking into the holy days, since I had to give the sermon at Pentecost. My message was about how wrong we were about the holy days, but I stated it in a way that sounded like I was agreeing with everyone. They all said it was the best Pentecost sermon they had ever heard! All but one man. He knew. He came up to me afterward with a glint in his eye and a smile hidden in the corner of his mouth. Oh, he knew exactly what I'd just done. He was genuinely one of the most intelligent human beings I had ever known. He shook my hand with a wink and said it was a good message. We talked very briefly about how nobody else realized. I asked him if he'd thought about leaving. He said yes, but he was going to stay. That's where all his friends were. I thought that was a good reason for a man like him. That was it. Lord, do I ever miss that man!</p><p>I spent the summer studying and debating what I had learned online. I read "<i>Churches That Abuse</i>" by Ronald Enroth. That book hurt! I started to read "<i>The Babylon Connection</i>" by Ralph Woodrow, but that took a back seat to another matter. I happened across the infamous story of Herbert Armstrong's personal failings. (You know what I mean. We never go into detail about that here. That's for other websites. But it's all true!)</p><p>I was not actively looking for information on Armstrong, specifically. I was just reading everything I could find. I found out about his reliance on the ravings of G. G. Rupert, how he borrowed doctrines from the SDA and the Mormons and would read the JW's <i>Watchtower</i> magazine to get ideas, how he read "<i>Mein Kampf</i>" and was a Communist sympathizer, how a woman offering him a stack of wood caused him to believe he was chosen by God, how he was fired from the Church of God (Seventh Day), how he predicted Jesus would return by 1936, how he was a plagiarist, how he let his wife die of a simple bowel obstruction but had a suitcase full of pills for himself, how he used to teach Pentecost was on a Monday, how he was remarried to a woman young enough to be his granddaughter, and how he almost lost the Worldwide Church of God to the State of California in a receivership debacle in the 1970s. He was the test I never wanted. He needed to endure the gauntlet. He failed spectacularly. It was a thing of grotesque beauty. Like watching the Bismarck sink. This was the Apostle?! (<i>Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying: ‘Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms'?</i>) Could this get any worse??</p><p>Once again, I was crushed. I recalled Armstrong's words, "The deceived don't know they are deceived." Finally, I knew I had not just been wrong. Yes, things could get worse.. I had been <b>deceived</b>. There was a marked difference between the church being wrong and me being deceived. There is no way for me to write to you about how that felt. I promise you, it was as if the very gravity that held me to the earth could not be trusted anymore, and I could possibly float away at any moment. Nothing was worthy of my trust. The only thing I was sure about at that point were the Ten Commandments. What else was hiding out there, waiting for me? I was about to find out.</p><p>Enter Justin Martyr.</p><p>For some reason I cannot explain, for about the past year or so by this point I suspected answers were hiding in the writings of the early church. I didn't know the first thing about these early church writers. We were always told to stay away from them. I forced myself to read them and become familiar. There were quite a few, so it took a long time. And, to be honest, they were confusing to me. I couldn't relate because I was coming from such a different place. They were saying things that weren't Armstrong's message at all. Like, at all. Not even a little. All of them did this. The natural proclivity of an Armstrongist mindset is to try and force everything into our worldview box, to protect it and keep it true. I couldn't do that with these "Church Fathers". Normally, when something defies every attempt to fit it into the box, it gets dismissed as deception from Satan, and condemned. I wasn't about to do that either. The point was to understand them as they are, and get answers. Yet, to be even more honest, since we were told not to trust them, I didn't seriously trust them. I was afraid of this "lost century" thing. If you aren't familiar, Armstrong told us the true church was forced underground before the end of the first century and all the writings from about 90 AD and onward were nothing but Catholic propaganda. "Lost history" referred to the true church being nowhere to be found, even though it endured, secretly. Maybe in some valley in the French Alps. We don't know. They were lost. You can't prove it, so it must be true! Was any of that <i>really</i> true? No. Not at all. But we believed it was true. Long story short, it took me a long time to get through any of the writings from that period.</p><p>One average night as I sat on my couch, I came across a second century document written by a man named Justin. They call him Justin Martyr, for obvious reasons. Justin is the earliest extant Christian apologist. One of his writings is about a discussion he had with a Jew named Philo. Among other things, Justin described to Philo how Christians no longer observe the Sabbath. It was nowhere near as simple as, "We don't keep the Sabbath because the Pope changed it to Sunday." No. He went into detail about it. He debated a Sabbath keeper about it from the guy's own scriptures. I will never forget sitting there, realizing the church was wrong on the Sabbath, too. Not the Sabbath! Yes, the Sabbath.</p><p>Do you remember when I said I was shocked when I felt an inexplicable joy come over me as I contemplated the New Covenant? And how I said I was shocked when my friend said, "Herbert Armstrong changed the law out of necessity"? This was another of those times. Like earthquakes and aftershocks, they just kept coming. But this one was good!</p><p>It all made sense all at once. Armstrong was wrong! The early church were not Sabbatarians, and it was for completely Biblical reasons. There was no lost history. Jesus <b>is</b> our Sabbath! <br />I sat on that couch, mouth agape, reading and re-reading Justin's words. I tried to explain it to the person sitting next to me, but I was so energized I stumbled and fumbled over my words. My mind was going faster than my mouth could keep up.</p><p>No wonder why we weren't allowed to read that stuff!!</p><p>The next day, I prayed about it. I kid you not, I laid face down on the living room floor like the men of old, and I prayed my heart out. I wanted the truth - GOD'S truth. I didn't care what the consequences were, so long as I knew the truth. And just like that, the joy I felt that one night retuned. It was one of the best feelings I'd ever experienced.<br />Something inside me knew the joy was temporary. This world can't keep joy like that. It was only a down payment; a foretaste. It would dissipate, but I was going to ride that wave as long as I could.</p><p><b>OUTRO</b></p><p>After services one Sabbath shortly thereafter, I asked my Minister to step aside and speak to me privately. He was an honorable man. Not at all like the rest. I told him I was having issues with what I had learned about Armstrong's behavior. He asked if I thought the Holy Spirit came through Armstrong. I considered it for a moment then responded, no. If the Holy Spirit comes at all, it comes directly to us through Christ. I assured him I wasn't questioning his ordination. Realizing that wasn't all there was to it, he probed for more. I responded I could not tell him more, because if I did, he would have to answer the same questions I was, and either he would have to agree with me or lie to himself. <br />He needed that place, he needed those people, and it wasn't right for me to take it away. It was clear I had to escape Armstrongism. I couldn't stay, like my friend would. I had to go. I was a threat to the group. All I could do any longer is cause division. For their sake and mine, I had to go.</p><p>A few days later, a Minister from another area called to ask if I would speak at his Feast of Tabernacles in Panama City, Florida that year. A great honor, which I had to politely decline. I didn't tell him I was leaving. I just said I couldn't attend that year. It was true enough.</p><p>Prophecy, gone. Doctrine, gone. Armstrong, God's appointed Apostle, gone. Sabbath, gone.<br />This is how I described my last day in my post "<a href="https://xhwa.blogspot.com/2008/09/all-my-yesterdays.html" target="_blank">Welcome To Escaping Armstrongsm</a>" on the old blog:</p><p></p><blockquote>"I left my splinter group on Saturday, August 23rd, 2008.<br />I had followed Herbert Armstrong for 30 years.<br />I insisted on going to services in order to see everyone one last time. I arrived dressed in my best. I made sure to give out as many hugs and hardy handshakes as possible. I got a cup of coffee and settled in for the sermon. When the coffee was gone, so was I. Quietly, I sneaked out the back door, and I am not going to return.<br />These were the people who were there when I was a child. They were at my wedding. They saw my wife and I through our pregnancies. Everyone was invited to my wife's baptism. They were grandma and grandpa to our children. We went through agonizing church splits together. They loved us like their own. They were a closer family than my physical family. And I never wanted to have to go."</blockquote><p></p><p>Three decades of my life dedicated primarily to one thing. All gone. All except for Jesus and a belief that mainstream Christianity was steeped in pagan ideas.</p><p>I bet my life and my future on the inerrancy of the church Herbert Armstrong founded. I lost that bet. This was supposed to have been the one true church sent from God to tell us the astounding truth! God's truth!!</p><p>I knew I had one last bit of unfinished business that I would not enjoy in the least.<br />... [deep breath]...<br />I went to my mother's house to humiliate myself and admit my failures. She was right that whole time, and I was wrong. I didn't listen, and I should have. I put her through so much for nothing. She took it well.</p><p>I started the Escaping Armstrongism blog that same month. I was still escaping. That's also when I came up with the name xHWA. In other words, <i>ex Herbert W Armstrong believer</i>. Seemed fitting. And sounded better than Silence DoGood.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I hope you found some nugget of value in my story. God willing, <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/02/escaping-armstrongism-part-ii.html">in the next post</a>, I will tell you about how I went from recovering Armstrongist to mainstream Christian. See you then!</p><p><br /></p><p> </p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-77989867123983821512024-02-01T19:13:00.014-05:002024-02-29T06:44:30.917-05:00Firstfruits and the Beauty of God's Timing<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>Herbert Armstrong was absolutely right when he said,</p><p></p><blockquote>"Few professing Christians have ever thought to question or to prove this "Good-Friday-Easter" tradition. Yet the Bible tells us to prove (test) all things."<br />-Herbert W Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p3</blockquote><p></p><p>He lived in a time when average people generally did not have access to information. They didn't know anyone who questioned or proved, and didn't think to question or prove. When I tried to question Easter, I got garbage answers from people who were completely unprepared. I took their lack of ability to explain as evidence there was no good answer. For that mistake, I served a 26-year stint in Armstrongism.</p><p>These people had answers. I asked, and they PROVED! (Armstrong would always capitalize for emphasis.) But did they? Armstrongism was feeding me completely one-sided answers; the same few points over and over, which I was not allowed to question. I went from not knowing I should question, to knowing I should not question. I thought we were supposed to question and prove! No. Only enough to get you in the door. After that, it just gets you back out the door again.</p><p>Is confirmation bias and beating up on straw men really the same thing as <i>proving</i>? Was it really any different than when I questioned Easter at the outset? There are two sides to every story, but after all those years it dawned on me I had still only heard the testimony from one side. But if that was so, then I had never really PROVED <b>either side</b> of this. All this time I had been hearing only what I wanted to hear. This made me no different than the Easter-keepers who only heard what they wanted to hear. I didn't need to be coddled, I needed proof! But I didn't know Easter from Adam. Who was going to give me the answers I still needed? No one. I was going to have to get the answers myself. Thus began a 16-year journey here at As Bereans Did.</p><p>I made life-altering choices based on the information I had at the time. Now, dear reader, we have access to better information. Now we can finally PROVE as we should. As Bereans Did has several articles on Easter. Those articles do the heavy lifting on topics like "three days and three nights", the two Sabbaths of Matthew 28, the Quartodeciman Controversy, Constantine the Great, Eostra, Old Covenant vs New Covenant, and all the rest. See our <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/p/faq.html" target="_blank">Categories</a> page for a list.</p><p>In <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2024/01/refusing-to-understand.html" target="_blank">my last post</a> I promised another article. I did this because I have stumbled across something that I want to share with you. I was reading through the article "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2012/11/history-of-easter-part-i.html" target="_blank">History of Easter - part I</a>" when I was sidetracked reading about the Feast of Firstfruits. That led me to a little detail I thought was interesting enough to warrant its own article.</p><p>Today's post is going to be about the beauty and intricacy of God's timing. Specifically, the timing of Good Friday and Easter Sunday (the timing everybody loves to hate) and how it fits with the Feast of Firstfruits. But to get to that point, we need to learn about the Feast of Firstfruits.</p>
<p><br /><b>FEAST OF FIRSTFRUITS</b></p>
<p>Firstfruits (Yom HaBikkurim = Day of Firsfruits) was an important ceremony within the timing of the Days of Unleavened Bread. We can read about it in Leviticus 23.</p>
<blockquote>(LEV. 23: 9-11) 9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When you come into the land which I give to you, and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest. 11 He shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted on your behalf; on the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it. 12 And you shall offer on that day, when you wave the sheaf, a male lamb of the first year, without blemish, as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 Its grain offering shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire to the Lord, for a sweet aroma; and its drink offering shall be of wine, one-fourth of a hin. 14 You shall eat neither bread nor parched grain nor fresh grain until the same day that you have brought an offering to your God; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.</blockquote>
<p>The Day of Firstfruits was the very day when the Wave Sheaf Offering was performed.<br />The Days of Unleavened Bread, which the Jews call Passover, was a harvest festival. Actually, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles were all harvest festivals. Passover was the festival of the first harvest of the year - the barley harvest. Since the first and best of everything is dedicated to God, the barley harvest couldn't begin in earnest until after the Wave Sheaf Offering. And the Wave Sheaf Offering couldn't happen until the barley was ready to harvest. The ripening of the barley and the Spring Equinox keep Passover tied to its particular time of the year. The Day of Firstfruits also helped to tie Passover to Pentecost. The 50-day count to Pentecost starts on Firstfruits.<br />The Day of Firstfruits was actually pretty important.</p>
<p>Firstfruits wasn't emphasized by Herbert Armstrong, therefore it is mostly overlooked by the Church of God splinter groups. Oh, you'll get mention of it here and there from detail-oriented ministers, but most people glossed right over it. Here is where I would usually give my catch phrase "The law! The law! Just not THAT law!" and where Armstrongists would object that this was ceremonial so it was done away, then I would respond that if you keep Pentecost then it isn't ceremonial and keeping 2% of the law is not keeping the law. Yada yada. Round and round it goes. Today's article isn't meant to be so polemic as that.</p>
<p>There is a fairly interesting detail hidden in here which you probably glossed right over. I'll put it here again for you -<br /> "On the day after the Sabbath the priest shall wave it." (v.11)</p>
<p>Why is that important, you ask? Because, as fate would have it, that little word right there - Sabbath - caused issues that I think display the beauty and intricacy of God's timing.</p>
<p><br /><b>WHICH SABBATH?</b></p>
<p>That's the big money question right there. Which Sabbath is verse 11 referring to? In my last article, I shared this quote from the UCG, "Two kinds of 'Sabbaths' leads to confusion." Not in Matthew 28, no, but in Leviticus 23 it really does. </p><p>If you're here reading this blog, you already know there are two kinds of Sabbaths: weekly Sabbaths (Saturday) and annual holy days. In a multi-day festival like the Days of Unleavened Bread, you will always have at least one weekly Sabbath. By the nature of the DOUB, you will also have two annual Sabbaths - the first day and the last day. One feast, two kinds of Sabbaths.</p>
<p>When you have a thousand years to think on things, details like the word Sabbath can cause big disputes. By the time Jesus was born, that Sabbath in v.11 was interpreted in two very different ways. The Sadducees decided the regular <u>weekly</u> Sabbath was the one being spoken of. For them, the date didn't matter, only the day of the week - Sunday. The Pharisees, on the other hand, tied it to the <u>annual</u> Sabbath. Why tie the Wave Sheaf to a regular weekly Sabbath when you're reading a section of Torah detailing annual Sabbaths? For them, the day of the week didn't matter, only the date - the 16th. In any given year, there were two completely incompatible interpretations of the timing of the Day of Firstfruits.</p>
<p>You can read about this topic on any number of Jewish sources (e.g., Chabad).</p><p>Harder to find is information on when other Jewish sects observed the Wave Sheaf. From what I can find, Kenneth Strand (at the time of Andrews University) claims the Essenes sided with the Sadducees and observed after the weekly Sabbath.</p><p>We have mentioned in other articles the Church of God splinter groups disagree on when to keep Pentecost in years where the first day of Unleavened Bread falls on a Saturday. The nature of this debate is is why.</p>
<p>Which side was in the right? The Bible doesn't clarify elsewhere. If it were clear, there wouldn't be a debate. I am not going to attempt an answer. That is not the point of this article. I wish to show something quite different. I for one am amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them.</p><p>I'll explain how in a bit! Don't rush me!</p>
<p><br /><b>JESUS - FIRST OF THE FIRSTFRUITS</b></p>
<p>I said earlier that the Wave Sheaf is mentioned by the more detail-oriented ministers in Armstrongism. Some use it to dispute over the timing of Pentecost. The better sermons would explain how Jesus fulfills the symbolism of the Wave Sheaf offering. I like to give credit where credit is due - and these ministers deserve credit for being correct.<br />See? We at ABD always admit where people are right.</p>
<p>Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians 15: 20 & 23. Christ is also indirectly called the Firstfruits in Romans 11: 16. The idea of associating Jesus with the firstfruits is an old one. Granted, Jesus isn't the only one associated with it. All Christians will eventually be associated. But that's for another article. Suffice it to say it is possible to demonstrate a tie between Jesus and Firstfruits.</p><p>Know that when Christ is called Firstfruits in I Corinthians, this is in reference to resurrection from the dead. The entire chapter is, overall, about resurrection.</p>
<blockquote>(I COR. 20: 20-23) 20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.</blockquote>
<p>God isn't interested in harvesting barley. Ultimately, we are the harvest God has planted. Jesus is the very first of the harvest. "The firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." Firstfruits and resurrection are linked so closely that, at least in Corinthians, Jesus' resurrection is the fulfillment of the Day of Firstfruits.</p>
<p>Taking what we've seen about Firstfruits, let's put that together with Passover.</p><p>Passover is fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, as He is our Passover lamb. The first day of Unleavened Bread is fulfilled by Jesus' death taking away our sin, as the leaven in the bread is representative of sin. And the Firstfruits is fulfilled by Jesus' resurrection, as He is the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Three days that point directly to Christ.</p><p>Now that we've talked about imagery, let's talk about the beauty of how that played out.</p><p><b><br />GOD FULFILLS EVERYTHING</b></p>
Remember how the Sadducees always put Firstfruits on a Sunday while the Pharisees always put it after the holy day? Imagine what a mess that must have been. The powerful and wealthy yet less numerous Sadducees, in control of the Temple, performing rituals according to their own views, versus the numerous and fastidious Pharisees, tithing to the last seed, wanting everything done according to their views. It had to have been a frustrating dynamic even on normal days. Yet, as providence would have it, in a Friday-Sunday scenario, both systems snap into alignment. But only in a Friday-Sunday crucifixion scenario.<br /><p>I want to put a chart up for you so you can visualize what I just said:</p>
<style>
table {width:100%; border: 0pt solid black;border-collapse: collapse;white-space: normal;}
th,td {border: 1pt solid black;border-collapse: collapse;}
</style><table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="border: 0pt;"></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 13<br />Thursday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 13/14<br />Thu/Fri</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 14<br />Friday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 14/15<br />Fri/Sat</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 15<br />Saturday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 15/16<br />Sat/Sun</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 16<br />Sunday</p></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 0pt;"></td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Traditional</b></td>
<td nowrap=""> </td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Pharisees</b></td>
<td nowrap=""> </td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Sadducees</b></td>
<td nowrap=""> </td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<p>The "Traditional" row shows how the traditional Good Friday-Easter Sunday scenario fits. For the Pharisees (and modern Jews), Firstfruits could be on any day of the week but it was always on the 16th. For the Sadducees, it was always on the same day of the week, Sunday, but it could be on any date.</p><p>See how that lines up? Only in a Friday-Sunday scenario is everything aligned. I find this to be an absolutely wonderful testament to the intricacy and beaty of God's timing. When our God says "fullness of time" He really means it!</p>
<p>What would this look like in the Thursday-Sunday and Wednesday-Saturday timelines?</p>
<p><u>Thursday-Sunday</u><br /></p>
<style>
table {width:100%; border: 0pt solid black;border-collapse: collapse;white-space: normal;}
th,td {border: 1pt solid black;border-collapse: collapse;}
</style>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="border: 0pt;"></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 14<br />Thursday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 14/15<br />Thu/Fri</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 15<br />Friday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 15/16<br />Fri/Sat</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 16<br />Saturday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 16/17<br />Sat/Sun</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 17<br />Sunday</p></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 0pt;"></td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Thu-Sun</b></td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath /<br />Firstfruits?</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath /<br />Wave Sheaf? </td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits?</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Pharisees</b></td>
<td nowrap="">Passover</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath /<br />Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath /<br />Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap=""><br /></td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Sadducees</b></td>
<td nowrap="">Passover </td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>For the Thursday-Sunday scenario, you now have a choice for Firstfruits. Which will it be, the Saturday or the Sunday? That all depends on who is writing the article you read. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Saturday because it is the 16th and comes after the annual holy day on Friday. But now there is a problem. Usually, an homer of barley was cut immediately after sundown at the start of the Firstfruits, then the Wave Sheaf happened the next morning. With Firstfruits on a double-Sabbath, neither of those can happen. The Wave Sheaf would have to be postponed. Except, Exodus says not to delay this kind of ceremony.</p>
<blockquote>(EXO. 22: 29a) You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices.</blockquote>
<p>Whether they delayed or not is beside the point. The point here is, the perfect alignment is ruined. Look at the chaos in that chart.</p>
<p><u>Wednesday-Saturday</u><br /></p>
<style>
table {width:100%; border: 0pt solid black;border-collapse: collapse;white-space: normal;}
th,td {border: 1pt solid black;border-collapse: collapse;}
</style>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="border: 0pt;"></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 15<br />Thursday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 15/16<br />Thu/Fri</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 16<br />Friday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 16/17<br />Fri/Sat</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 17<br />Saturday</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 17/18<br />Sat/Sun</p></th>
<th><p align="center">Nissan 18<br />Sunday</p></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 0pt;"></td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
<td style="background: rgb(68, 114, 196); text-align: center;">Night</td>
<td style="background: yellow; text-align: center;">Day</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Wed-Sat</b></td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits?</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf? </td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits?</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Pharisees</b></td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap=""><br /></td>
<td nowrap=""> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td nowrap=""><b>Sadducees</b></td>
<td nowrap="">First Day UB</td>
<td nowrap=""><br /></td>
<td nowrap=""> </td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Sabbath</td>
<td nowrap="">Firstfruits</td>
<td nowrap="">Wave Sheaf</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>For the Wednesday-Saturday scenario, you again have a choice for Firstfruits. With whom will you side, the Pharisees or the Sadducees? Again, that depends on the opinion of who is writing what you are reading. For the Pharisees, Firstfruits moves to Friday, while nothing at all happens on Friday for the Sadducees. (Why didn't the women go to the tomb on Friday?) As you can see, this scenario completely ruins the beauty of the alignment.</p><p>A Friday Firstfruits complicates the symbolism of Jesus' resurrection fulfilling Firstfruits. Pharisees would never agree that He did. He was resurrected two days afterward. Alignment obliterated!</p><p>If you know what Armstrongism teaches about the Last Supper, then you know they claim Jesus was correcting the timing of the Jews. That means the slaughter of the lambs should be moved to Tuesday and Jesus was crucified a day later than He should have been. That wreaks havoc on the imagery of Jesus as our Passover Lamb. <br />This time scenario ruins the imagery of Passover <u>and</u> Firstfruits. How does that <i>fix</i> the timing exactly?</p><p>Read our article "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2012/11/history-of-easter-part-i.html">History of Easter - part I</a>". In it we talk about whether Jesus was correcting the timing of Passover when He ate the Lord's Supper a day early.</p>
<p>Notice how the alignment gets uglier and more chaotic the farther away you go from the Traditional timing. Contrast that with the beauty of the traditional timing and the intricacy of the planning that must have gone into it on God's part. The alignment <u>only</u> happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario. What a little detail, and easy to miss. Yet God did not miss it.</p><p>You will never see a chart like this in any Church of God splinter group's material. It would never occur to them to make one in the first place. The information is just as much in front of them as it is you, yet they cherry pick right past it. They don't concern themselves with things that don't support their desired outcomes. And they most definitely do not make charts that show there could be issues with their predetermined conclusions. Too much money is at stake.</p><p>It's about time we took Herbert Armstrong's advice to "prove (test) all things".</p><p><br /><b>CONCLUSION</b></p>
<p>At the start of this article, I said, "I for one am utterly amazed at something good that comes from these debates. I see God glorifying Himself in them." I hope now you understand what I meant.</p>
<p>Is this some slam dunk of a point I'm making today? Standing on its own, no. But it is interesting! Good thing this point doesn't stand by itself. Taken with the evidence in our other articles we have written for you, it builds a decent case.</p><p>When we genuinely prove something, we look at all of the evidence, both for and against. Not like our friends in the Church of God splinter groups who only look at evidence for their claims, and hide everything else. If we refuse to accept any contrary evidence even exists, how are we proving? We here at As Bereans Did spent most of our lives in Armstrongism. We know what is said and what evidence is given. We don't deny it. What we realized we hadn't done was exactly what Herbert Armstrong said to do in the first place - really prove out the Friday-Sunday scenario. Well, against all expectations, turns out there is quite a bit to it when we let the Bible interpret the Bible, use the right definitions of words, count like a Hebrew, take into account extra-Biblical evidence, and genuinely try to poke holes in our own understanding in order to let the truth just be what it is.</p>
<p>God is a God of order, not chaos. He defeats chaos. Because of some points in the law that were not clarified, such as which Sabbath should mark the start of the Day of Firstfruits, the Jews fell into disagreement. The Jews debated timing and ended up with two incompatible timing scenarios. God, being wiser and more capable than all our greatest faults, found a way to satisfy everything. He patiently waited, and when the fullness of time had come, He acted. Truly, He was up to the challenge of whatever our confusion threw at Him. He practically wraps it all up in a pretty bow. Praise the Lord! Glory and laud and honor to the One who sits on the throne, surrounded by beauty and power, and who humbled Himself for us so we could be with Him.</p>
<p>And this alignment <u>only</u> happens in the traditional Friday-Sunday scenario.</p>
<p><br /></p><p>God bless you, dear reader! You are why ABD exists. Thanks for reading.</p>
<p>If you have more questions about Easter and timing, please read our "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/04/easter-faq.html">Easter FAQ</a>". I update it from time to time.</p>
<p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p><p></p></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-18200531782866985412024-01-26T07:22:00.125-05:002024-03-10T12:08:18.692-04:00Refusing To Understand<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>Hello readers! It’s me again. I had retired from blogging. I came out of retirement, briefly, to write this post. And the most succinct thing I can say about it is - I don’t know why I do this to myself. </p><p>Lately, I have been working on updating the <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/04/easter-faq.html">Easter FAQ</a> (if you’ve never read it, or haven’t read it in a while, please do check it out, we answer almost everything there). After finishing, an idea popped into my head. I haven’t been to a Church of God website in a couple years. I was curious to see if they’ve improved their research skills. Maybe all of this information on the Interwebs has gotten through. Maybe things have changed for the better. I figured the most recent article on Easter from the United Church of God should be a fairly good representative. So, I pulled up the showpiece from 2023, “<i>Good Friday + Easter Sunday It Doesn’t Add Up!</i>” by Scott Ashley and Mario Seiglie.</p><p>Why, oh why do I do this to myself!?</p><p>Have research skills improved? No. Has intellectual honesty increased? No. Have they stopped posting the same old nonsense from 75 years ago? No. Have they stopped posting blatantly false information? Sadly, no.</p><p>Let’s see if the patented As Bereans Did gauntlet still works. It might need a little oil.</p><p><b><br />WHAT SIGN DID JESUS GIVE?</b></p><p>Mr. Ashley and Mr. Seiglie start with the classics, and quote Matthew 12: 40.</p><p></p><blockquote>“This was the only specific sign Jesus gave that He was the promised Messiah: ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’”</blockquote><p></p><p>It's the good old “72 hours is the only sign Jesus gave” claim. We address this in depth in our 2013 article “<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html">Three Days and Three Nights</a>”. Where did they get this claim? From Herbert Armstrong.</p><p></p><blockquote>"He expressly declared that the only sign He would give to prove He was the Messiah was that He should be just three days and three nights in the rock-hewn sepulcher in 'the heart of the earth.' "<br />-Herbert Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p.4</blockquote><p></p><p>But let’s ask - is that the only specific sign Jesus gave? No.</p><p>Jesus gave one sign, stated in two ways.<br />In Matthew 12: 39-40 & 16: 4, and Luke 11: 29-30, He gave the sign of Jonah the prophet. Only Matthew 12 mentions time. The others do not. So, are the specifics of the timing really the point when only one selection out of three mentions it? Jonah is mentioned in all three. Some people can't see past the time aspect as if that's all there is to it. There is another thing to consider.<br />When we go to John 2: 18-19, we see an entirely different sign, the sign of the temple being destroyed and rebuilt in three days. Notice, three days, not three days and three nights. Seems pretty specific to me.<br />So, straight off the starting line, the UCG is wrong. That temple sign means the sign of Jonah is not the only one.</p><p>Yet, Jesus said only <u>one</u> sign would be given. A clear Bible contradiction? No. If we understand what Jesus was <i>really</i> referring to. Both the sign of Jonah and the sign of the Temple are the <u>same</u> sign, spoken in two ways. That sign is: <b>His death and resurrection</b>.<br /><u>That</u> is the one and only sign.</p><p>Ashley and Seigli will disagree, of course, because the founder of their church said this:</p><p></p><blockquote>"That evidence was not the fact of the resurrection itself. It was the length of time He would repose in His grave, before being resurrected."<br />-Herbert Armstrong, "The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday", 1972, p.4</blockquote><p></p><p>But as you can see with your own eyes, it really was the fact of His resurrection after all. There was a time component in the resurrection, but the time component itself is not the sign.</p><p>There was one sign stated in two ways. Just as Jonah and the Temple are one sign spoken of in two ways; the phrases "three days and three nights" and "three days" are one time period spoken of in two ways. It's the same.</p><p>We have quite a bit more for you on this topic in our article "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html" target="_blank">Three Days and Three Nights</a>".</p><p>Now that we know what the only sign actually is - the fact of a death and a resurrection - we can put to bed any talk about, "The only sign is a literal 72-hour three days and three nights." That was never the sign. If the time were the sign, don't you suppose someone would have been there to witness it? The only people there were Roman guards who were passed out in fear. Exact time isn't much of a sign if nobody witnessed it. But that He was dead and came back on the third day .. no lack of witnesses for that sign.<br />The whole claim about 72-hours is nothing but a gross oversimplification of the intricacies and beauty of the Biblical narrative. (That's for another article.)</p><p>These UCG authors aren’t exactly hitting a bullseye on Jesus’ signs. I imagine this is going to devolve into arguing over what the definition of “specific” is.</p><p><b><br />MATH DOESN’T WORK IF YOU DO IT WRONG</b></p><p>Next stop is the well-worn argument about Friday to Sunday not being 72 hours. </p><p>Did you know you can use the truth to misdirect and deceive? I’ve read countless times in my day how, “Satan quotes the Bible, too.” It is actually true that Friday evening to Sunday morning is not 72-hours. But could there be a very important detail we are not being shown? After that last section about signs, can we be confident Ashley and Seiglie have looked at all of the evidence? I don’t think so.</p><p>If we let the Bible interpret the Bible (people still do that, right?), we might be able to go in search for the Bible’s own definition of “three days and three nights”. Let’s do that now.</p><p>Jesus refers to Jonah. Is there any marker of time in Jonah that will prove this is a literal 72-hours? None at all. It just says three days and three nights, then moves on. A definition of 72-hours is not something we got from Jonah. It has to be <i>read into</i> Jonah.</p><p>If we turn to I Samuel 30: 12, we will see the same phrase. The young Egyptian hadn’t eaten for three days and three nights. Then, in the very next verse he says, "I fell sick three days ago". That doesn’t seem to be 72-hours. In fact, it gives the sense of less than 72-hours. It seems like “three days and three nights” and “three days” are two different ways to say the same thing. It's as if "three days and three nights" is an ancient idiomatic expression not intended to be understood as a specific time down to the hour. A definition of 72-hours is not something we got from Samuel.</p><p>If we go to Esther 4: 16, we see the phrase "three days, night or day". Not exactly the same, but practically identical. Esther tells the Jews, "Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day ... then I will go to the king." Chapter 5: 1 says, "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace." Did you catch that? The time marker in Esther shows this "three days, night or day" period ended "<b>on</b> the third day". There is no way “on the third day” is 72-hours here. Esther puts a nail in that definition.<br /><br />A definition of 72-hours is not something we get <u>from</u> the Bible. It has to be <u>put into</u> the Bible. When we let the Bible interpret the Bible, its own definition of "three days and three nights" is clearly <i>less than</i> 72-hours.</p><p>Here is where Herbert Armstrong and all who read his material will remind us Jesus said there are 12 hours in a day (JON. 11: 9). No one on either side denies there are 12 hours in a day. But this isn't about there being 12 hours in a day. This is about whether "three days and three nights" is meant to be understood literally. From its other uses, clearly is not. If you are going to hold "three days and three nights" to this literal standard, then <u>all the rest</u> of the descriptions must be literal as well. That simply is not possible.</p><p>The authors, as have everyone before them since Herbert Armstrong, speak only about Matthew 12. But did you know that isn’t the only verse where the length of Jesus' interment is described? The length of Jesus' entombment was described in much more than one way:</p><p></p><ul><li>"The third day" 11 times.</li><li>"In three days" 5 times.</li><li>"After three days" 2 times.</li><li>"On the third day" 1 time.</li><li>"Within three days" 1 time.</li></ul><p></p><p> (These come from the KJV.)</p><p>Several different phrases that all describe the exact same event, yet some say “within” and some say “after”. Some of those are the same phrases used in Esther and Samuel. Of course they are! They are very Hebrew ways of talking about time. Do you get the sense the Israelites didn’t talk about time in the same way we do today? Do you think there might be even a small chance that forcing a modern American view of time into an ancient Israelite discussion while completely ignoring idiomatic figures of speech is why the timeline doesn’t make sense to Ashley and Seiglie? Maybe if they stop trying to make the Bible say what they want it to say, and just let it say what it does say, there won't be so much confusion?</p><p>They go on,</p><p></p><blockquote>“Most theologians and religious scholars try to work around it by arguing that any part of a day or night counts as a day or night.”</blockquote><p></p><p>Yes, most theologians do argue that. And for good reason. Because that is how the Jews understood time. The concept is called the <i>onah</i>. </p><p>Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah (circa 90-155 AD), was President of the Sanhedrin after Gamaliel II (grandson of the Gamaliel that taught Paul) and is considered one of the great Rabbis whose views are recorded in the Mishnah. In the Jerusalem Talmud, in the Sabbath tractate chapter 9 part 3j, it says this:</p><p></p><blockquote>“It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, ‘A day and a night constitute a span [onah], and part of a span [onah] is equivalent to the whole of it.’"</blockquote><p></p><p>Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba (circa 180-230), who was also considered a great sage of his day, is recorded in the Mishnah as well. In the Talmud, Pesachim 4a v6, Rabbi Hiyya says this:</p><p></p><blockquote>"...and part of the day is as the whole of it".</blockquote><p></p><p>This cannot simply be ignored as something the theologians made up. It cannot be dismissed as if this is some perversion of the Pharisees. This is how they understood things. If you want to understand how people of that time and place thought about time, then it would serve to heed this. It might not be what we think. We might even think it's nonsensical. But our opinions do not matter. The Bible wasn't written by modern minds in King James English. It was written in Hebrew by people who genuinely consider a part of a day to count as the whole of it when you're counting time. They even had a word for it! Put yourself in their shoes. If they read about how we count time, they would say we are the ones who don't make sense.<br /><br />The word onah is ancient Jewish word that describes inclusive reckoning. Inclusive reckoning is where the first item and last item in a series are included in the count. This isn’t some novel concoction. All the Mediterranean counted inclusively. It can be demonstrated in the Bible itself, from start to end. You want to talk about “God-given time reckoning”, this is it!<br />Would you like an example? Here:</p><p>(EXO. 19: 10-11) 10 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes. 11 And let them be ready for the third day. For on the third day the Lord will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people."</p><p>Do you see how God says today (day 1), tomorrow (day 2), and the third day? That's inclusive reckoning. To put this another way, today (Friday), tomorrow (Saturday), and the third day (Sunday). Do you think He spoke those words immediately after sunset at the absolute beginning of the day? No. Do you suppose the Israelites arrived at the foot of Mt. Sinai directly at sunset 72-hours later? No. So, even God included part of a day as the whole of day 1 and and part of a day as the whole of day 3. Onah!<br />It's completely Biblical, folks!</p><p>Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the math actually <u>does</u> add up and makes sense IF you are willing to think like the people who wrote the Bible?<br />Yet, Ashley and Seiglie say:</p><p></p><blockquote>“Clearly something doesn’t add up. Either Jesus misspoke about the length of time He would be in the tomb, or the “Good Friday–Easter Sunday” timing is not biblical or accurate.”</blockquote><p></p><p>Oh, dear reader, the length of time was spoken about in six different ways in over twenty verses. The only thing that doesn’t add up is why these two gentlemen had every opportunity to read their Bibles and see for themselves what I'm telling you now about how the Jews count time - how God Himself counted time - but they refused. What they are really saying in that quote is, "If the Bible doesn't say what we want it to, then it's wrong." We here disagree. We feel if <u>we</u> don't conform to what the Bible is really saying, then <u>we</u> are wrong. Therefore, we propose a third option - Jesus was talking to the Pharisees in a way they would understand. Don’t you suppose He would use terms His audience would relate to?<br /></p><p>Let's ask, did the Pharisees Jesus was talking to understand either what Jesus said or the example of Jonah that Jesus gave as meaning 72-hours?</p><p>(MAT. 27: 63) “Sir, we remember, while He was still alive, how that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise.’</p><p>The priests and Pharisees say "after three days". That isn't at all 72-hours. Oh, they got the point. They understood exactly what Jesus was claiming. Yet, not a single one of these people who spent years of their lives memorizing the scriptures and analyzing them took Jesus or Jonah to mean 72-hours.</p><p>Doesn't that say something?</p><p>Read our article “<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/03/three-days-and-three-nights.html">Three Days and Three Nights</a>” for more.</p><p><b><br />PROPER DEFINITIONS LEAD TO CLARITY</b></p><p>Now we go on to the two sabbaths of Matthew 28. Typical fare. Predictable. So typical that we have an article on that, too. Written in in 2013. It's called "<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-sabbaths-of-matthew-28.html">The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28</a>". The name's not very creative, but it's super practical. Nothing has stopped the authors from reading it, or any of the myriad other articles online like it.</p><p>We are told, “Two kinds of ‘Sabbaths’ lead to confusion.” Well, I can’t argue against that. It sure does!<br />…but not in Matthew 28.</p><p>The authors review how Old Covenant annual holy days operated, and how work was prohibited, and how that made them Sabbaths. So far so good. Then they say,</p><p></p><blockquote>“Because traditional Christianity long ago abandoned these biblical annual Sabbath days (as well as the weekly Sabbath), for many centuries people have failed to recognize what the Gospels plainly tell us…”</blockquote><p></p><p>Is that what it is? People don’t keep a Sabbath, therefore they aren’t aware of them? Well whadda ya know! All this time I thought it was because the Greek word sabbaton doesn’t actually support being defined as a combination of an annual Sabbath and a weekly Sabbath.</p><p>Let’s see the Strong's Concordance definition of that word. </p><p></p><blockquote><b>4521 Sabbaton</b>: the Sabbath (that is, Shabbath), or day of weekly repose from secular avocations (also the observance or institution itself); by extension a se'nnight, that is, the interval between two Sabbaths; likewise the plural in all the above applications: - sabbath (day), week.</blockquote><p></p><p>Do you see anything in there that says "sabbaton means a combination of an annual Sabbath and a separate weekly Sabbath two days later"? No. You don’t see it because that isn’t one of the possible definitions. It <u>cannot</u> mean what they say it means.</p><p style="text-align: center;">"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."</p><p>The word sabbaton only refers to the weekly Sabbath; never an annual Sabbath. Greek has an entirely different word for annual Sabbaths: <i>hoerte</i>. In Colossians 2: 16, Paul separates "Sabbath day" (sabbaton) from "holyday" (heorte) in the same sentence. They are separate.</p><p>Even if for sake of argument we accept a Friday-Sunday timeline, and see John 19: 31 as saying the weekly Sabbath was also a high day, sabbaton still does not refer to a holy day. John says the sabbaton (weekly Sabbath) was high - using the Greek word "megas". Two days overlapped but separate. The words are still distinct in their use and their meaning.</p><p>Do you know why not a single Bible translation renders Matthew 28: 1 as Ashley and Seigli do? (Except maybe Fred Coulter's.) It’s not because Bible translators don’t keep the Sabbath and therefore don't know what a Sabbath is. It’s because they do know Greek.</p><p>What Ashley and Seiglie do here is utterly intellectually dishonest! It's one thing to redefine "three days and three nights" but it's another thing entirely to redefine Greek words. To be fair, it wasn't them. This is a very old claim. It was really Herbert Armstrong who committed the crime. These two just repeat it. But that makes me wonder who is worse? Herbert Armstrong's booklet "<i>The Resurrection Was Not On Sunday</i>" first came out in 1951. Ashley and Seiglie have had decades to correct this error. They just refuse to. It's not like they didn't have a Strong's Concordance!</p><p>Read our article “<a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-sabbaths-of-matthew-28.html">The Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28</a>” for more. </p><p>Pointing you at this article allows me to skip rebutting the rest of their misinformation and go straight on to … well, more ridiculous misinformation about another topic. Why do I do this to myself?</p><p><b><br />ANCIENT EVIDENCE?</b></p><p>In the final section, Ashley and Seiglie promise us evidence of a Wednesday crucifixion and a Saturday resurrection hidden in arcane documents you’ve never heard of (unless you've read Herbert Armstrong's booklet "Plain Truth About Easter" which is apparently where they got both of these sources). They then proceed to deliver a nothing burger.</p><p>First, they mention the <a href="https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didascalia.html" target="_blank">Didascalia Apostolorum</a>. The document is real, it claims to be from the Apostles but it really isn't, and it does show a Tuesday evening Last Supper. They are only interested in a Tuesday Last Supper because they are looking for support for a Wednesday crucifixion. Alas, it is quite clear about the Friday crucifixion. Just because Armstrongism and the Didascalia both have a Tuesday evening Lord's Supper doesn't mean anything. The two are very different otherwise. The authors get no support here.</p><p>What's more, the Didascalia was written in the 200s. Ashley and Seiglie just quoted from a document that exonerates Constantine. He is innocent of the charges of inventing the Friday-Sunday timeline.<br />Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Ashley and Seiglie to refer to the Didascalia after all!</p><p>Next, they quote from Epiphanius of Salamis. Epiphanius is known to have read the Didascalia Apostolorum. I would venture a guess that Ashley and Seiglie happened across Epiphanius while reading about the Didascalia. Epiphanius believed the Didascalia to be genuine. That's why he was quoting it. Since he's quoting the Didascalia, Epiphanus isn't really a second source apart from the Didascalia, is he? No, he isn't.</p><p>Ashley and Seiglie wouldn’t mention either the Didascalia or Epiphanus if they didn’t think there was some way of spinning it to their benefit. And so they do. They say,</p><p></p><blockquote>“Nonetheless, the document demonstrates that Passover was then understood by some to have been on Tuesday evening, which would place the crucifixion on the next day, Wednesday.”</blockquote><p></p><p>No. It doesn’t place the crucifixion on Wednesday at all. It ends the paragraph with these words, “…<i>they crucified Him on the same Friday</i>.” <br />Does it support the idea that some people believed the Last Supper was on Tuesday? Yes. Does that fact provide any support for a Wednesday crucifixion? No. To make that claim is to assume a Wednesday crucifixion is so natural that all one needs is a Tuesday Lord's Supper. It's begging the question (assuming the conclusion is true from the start, therefore evidence must fit it). It is also non sequitur (it does not follow that just because we see a Tuesday Lord' Supper there must be a Wednesday crucifixion). That is not how logic and evidence works. Most especially when the source material flat out contradicts the conclusion.</p><p>If you’re going to reference a source, you can’t just yank out the parts you like and change the rest. That's called cherry picking. The Didascalia, in chapter XXI, goes into a good amount of detail about the timeline between the Tuesday Last Supper and the Friday crucifixion. It doesn’t support Ashley and Seiglie at all. The authors don’t seem to care what the Didascalia says. What they do here is presumptuous. <br /><br />This is exactly what they did with the Bible commentaries they mentioned in their article. The commentaries agree with them in one point, that sabbaton can be plural, but completely disagree with their conclusion, yet they cite the commentaries anyway as if everyone is in harmony.<br />But it gets worse.</p><p>Feeling they've demonstrated the crucifixion was on a Wednesday, which they have not done, Ashley and Seiglie add two more references. These last two are intended to demonstrate that there were some people who believed Jesus rose on Saturday. They mention Socrates of Constantinople and Gregory of Tours. When I checked, I honestly don’t know where they got this idea that these sources support them.</p><p>I cannot find the provided quote from Gregory of Tours. They didn't give the name of the writing. In his “History of the Franks” Book I chapter 18, Gregory only says, “<i>The day of the Lord's resurrection is the first, not the seventh.</i>” (Meaning the Lord was resurrected on Sunday not Saturday.) He doesn’t mention anyone believing it was on the seventh. Might be possible some did. People believe crazy things (like sabbaton can mean an annual holy day and a weekly sabbath two days apart). But I can't find where he say so.</p><p>As for Socrates of Constantinople, Ashley and Seiglie straight up butcher what he says.<br />In his book "<i>Ecclesiastical History</i>" chapter XXII, Socrates is referring to the account of the Quartodeciman Controversy recoded by Eusebius. Socrates is paraphrasing Eusebius.<br /></p><p>Ashley and Seiglie look at the quote, they see the word “sabbath”, and they conclude it means the weekly Sabbath. But that isn’t what Socrates means when he uses that word.<br />To understand why not, you must understand that Socrates is talking about the differences over Pascha, and summarizing Eusebius’ account.<br />The issue being discussed wasn’t about when Jesus was resurrected. It was about when people were honoring the Last Supper. The word sabbath here does not refer to Saturday or to a resurrection on Saturday. It refers to a remembrance of the Lord's Supper.</p><p>Read it for yourself:</p><p></p><blockquote>“In Asia Minor most <b>people kept the fourteenth day of the moon, disregarding the sabbath: yet they never separated from those who did otherwise</b>, until Victor, bishop of Rome, influenced by too ardent a zeal, fulminated a sentence of excommunication against the Quartodecimans in Asia. Wherefore also Irenæus, bishop of Lyons in France, severely censured Victor by letter for his immoderate heat; telling him that although the ancients differed in their celebration of Easter, they did not desist from intercommunion. Also that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who afterwards suffered martyrdom under Gordian, continued to communicate with Anicetus bishop of Rome, although he himself, according to the usage of his native Smyrna, <b>kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon</b>, as Eusebius attests in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical History. While therefore some in Asia Minor observed the day above-mentioned, <b>others in the East kept that feast on the sabbath indeed</b>, but differed as regards the month.”<br />-Socrates of Constantinople, "<i>Ecclesiastical History</i>", book V, chapter XXII</blockquote><p></p><p>Socrates tells of a third option in the East.<br />The Quartodecimans followed the Jews, in the calendar, but were not exact because they kept the 14th which was a day earlier than the Seder - as Jesus was. As for the second group, it is difficult to interpret exactly what he means, but judging from a phrase he uses earlier in this book, "sabbath of the Passover", maybe Socrates of Constantinople used the word 'sabbath' here in reference to the annual sabbath. It is possible the second group were people who observed Pascha on the 15th day of the month. Socrates is clear they were not following the Jewish calendar in this. They differed from Quartodecimans and Jews both in the month, insisting the Pascha must be after the equinox. (Which speaks to one of the issues Rabbi Hillel II corrected in his calendar reforms.) This type of calendar dispute is discussed in detail by Anatolius of Alexandria in his work "<i>The Paschal Canon</i>".<br />But from the context, nothing I've read in this book or any other leads me to believe Socrates was referring to the weekly Sabbath. When the weekly Sabbath is mentioned in relation to Pascha, it is in reference to strict fasting and a vigil in remembrance of the entombment, not the Pascha itself. No one <i>regularly</i> observed the Lord's Supper on Saturday.</p><p>Wait just a minute. This is the same mistake Herbert Armstrong made in his booklet "Plain Truth About Easter" (see 1973 version, pages 20-21). Funny, Socrates and the Didascalia were his two cited sources as well. Isn't that a strange coincidence? They are just copying off of Armstrong. I thought Armstrong was irrelevant these days? I do recommend allowing him to be.</p><p>I can't tell you how many articles and booklets have been written to condemn Sunday observance which reference this very same Quartodeciman Controversy. Armstrongist material since the start have condemned mainstream Christianity as pagans for not being like the Quartodecimani. Socrates says the Quartodeciman side disregarded the sabbath. If Socrates uses sabbath to mean Saturday (which he does not), then guess what - Socrates undermines everything Armstrongist literature said in favor of the wonderful law-keeping Quartodecimani.<br />Maybe it wasn't such a good idea for Ashley and Seiglie to refer to Socrates after all!</p><p>Ashley and Seiglie never read through their source until they understood it. They just trusted Armstrong. They were so ideologically committed to a conclusion decided in advance, they couldn't see the source material literally says the opposite of what they were claiming.</p><p>For all the promise of Wednesday crucifixions and Saturday resurrections, they managed to come up with naught. All we got was more false history, more cherry picking, and more misquoting, and more redefining words, just like we used to get from Herman Hoeh.</p><p><br /><b>HOW NOT TO DO RESEARCH</b></p><p>Have you noticed what these authors have been doing this entire time?<br />They have a pre-existing ideological commitment. Maybe it's to 'three days and three nights' being 72-hours exactly. Maybe it's to a Wednesday crucifixion. They start with the conclusion, then they go looking for evidence. Is it any wonder they only accept evidence they think supports their conclusion?</p><p>Mind you, they didn't start with a hypothesis then set off to see if the evidence supports it. No. They started with a conclusion and went to see if they can cherry pick something to support it. They were so committed that they went out in search of people who understood the Lord's Supper was on a Tuesday, then didn't care when the source utterly contradicted everything else they had to say. Because, to them, a Tuesday Passover demands a Wednesday crucifixion, even if what they are reading specifically says otherwise. They were so ideologically committed that they saw the word sabbath in Socrates of Constantinople and concluded it had to mean weekly Sabbath, even though the source wasn't even talking about Saturday, or the resurrection for that matter, and literally contradicts their point. As if there is no way that word could mean anything else. They were so ideologically committed that they redefined the word sabbaton. If you know the larger story that I don't even didn't get into here, then you know they in fact redefined sabbaton <u>twice</u>! And not just sabbaton, but prosabbaton as well (MAR. 15: 42). The word prosabbaton was the name for Friday.</p><p>If they read the Didascalia and Socrates and the Greek dictionary this way, you can be certain they read the Bible this way.</p><p>They are ministers in the system, though. They get paid to have this conclusion. If they don't tow the line they are out of a job. But for you and I, is that how we should research? No.</p><p>If we genuinely search for truth, what we should do is be intellectually neutral and unbiased arbiters in that search for truth. Let the material say what it says. Let the truth be what it is. Truth can take care of itself. It doesn't need us to protect it. <br />I have always liked the definition of truth as "reality as it actually is." Truth is reality as it actually is. If we try to force reality to be one thing or the other, what is that called? Error, delusion, or worse, deception. If we do that, are we really looking for truth in the first place? This is why you see me using the phrase intellectual honesty. Being honest with the evidence.<br />When evidence is flat out ignored, when definitions of words are changed, when a source is used to come to a conclusion specifically denied by that very source - they pointed out that it disagreed with them for crying out loud - is that being intellectually honest?<br />Is that reality as it actually is?<br />Is that God's truth?<br />No. It isn't.</p><p>The best advice I can offer is to do the <u>opposite</u> of what your gut tells you and try to prove yourself wrong. Yes, be your own critic. Before I write a single word, I read and reread the source until I believe I understand what the author was saying. I try my best to understand the source <i>as the author intended</i>. Just like when I read Matthew 28 I try to understand it as the ancient Hebrews would have, not the way I want things to be. Then I mull the possible meanings over in my head until I think I understand. Then I try to poke holes in my conclusions and prove myself wrong. I do that until I can't poke any more holes. That way, I get as close to the truth as I can.<br />Sometimes you get what you want. Sometimes you don't. And sometimes the best conclusion you can come to is - I don't know. The answer can be uncertain. So, let it!</p><p>If you do these things, at least you will end up far closer to the truth than otherwise.</p><p>These authors could be fine people, with families and folks who love them. I don't know. I've never met them. My article is not about who they are as people. This article is about what they've written and the methods they've used. (Or is it about Herbert Armstrong's ideas and methods? They are the same, after all. I thought he wasn't relevant anymore.)<br />They've written a propaganda piece. They have access to all this history, sure enough. Rather than quote it accurately, learning what was meant to be understood, they twisted it beyond recognition because they had an agenda to satisfy.</p><p>If they do this to history books, do you think maybe they do the same thing to the Bible? Do you think they only treat this one subject in this way?</p><p><br /><b>CONCLUSION</b></p><p>Why! Why do I do this to myself??<br /><br />I could have left well enough alone, but no. I just had to go and look into that Palantir. I had hope! But now none. I am sorely disappointed to see that not only have things not improved in the Armstrongist splinter churches, but they've somehow managed to degrade just that much farther.</p><p>The Church of God splinter group articles on the last days of Jesus' life are, well, not so good. They don't understand what sign Jesus gave. They don't understand how Hebrews counted time. They don't understand the proper definition of Greek words like sabbaton or prosabbaton or paraskeue. They don't understand ancient documents when they read them. <br />Is it really honest to purposefully make a mess of things then complain how everything is a mess? "<i>I redefined, and obfuscated, and misrepresented, and cherry picked, now things don't make sense. Why!?</i>"<br />It's not that things can't add up, it's that when we try to force an answer from bad math it won't add up. It's not that they can't understand, it's that they <i>refuse</i> to understand.</p><p>I started out looking for hope. I couldn't find a single ray of hope in any of this, except possibly that the piece seemed to lack any heart. How is that a ray of hope? Because it means they don't really love what they're dishing out anymore. Maybe there's an end to this tunnel after all.</p><p>I want to share with you the reason this blog has so many articles on the holidays. It's not because we are stuck on holiday topics. It's because these fields are always so ripe with examples like the ones in today's article. Few other topics make it so easy to demonstrate the rank ideological bias in Armstrongism. Every time they write an article on holidays it has this same kind of thing like we saw today. We just grab that low-hanging fruit.</p><p>Dear reader, beloved by God, I plead with you to read our articles on this topic. We have a <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/p/faq.html" target="_blank">Categories</a> page with articles on every topic you need. If you only read one thing on this topic, at least read our <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/04/easter-faq.html">Easter FAQ</a>. It could have saved you, and Scott Ashley and Mario Seiglie - and me - quite a bit of headache.</p><p>Now, if you'll excuse me, I have one more article on the topic to write. Better get to it.</p><p><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-3032978539694204262023-12-28T06:06:00.002-05:002024-01-20T10:24:25.405-05:00Help Us Help You<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>Hello, dear reader. I bet you didn't expect to see any more posts here. I sure didn't! But, I think I have a good reason.</p><p>With Seeker passing away, I started wondering what kind of legacy did she leave behind. I have believed in this blog since before I joined it back in 2009. But there is always room for improvement. I would like to know if any improvements could be made.</p><p>Bearing in mind the point of this blog is investigating the Churches of God (ie. Armstrongism) from a Christ-centered perspective...<br />Is this blog being helpful to people looking for answers? Could we do something differently and be even better? Is there something we've missed that you would like more answers about? Have we said something that throws you off and we could re-phrase it to make it more accessible?</p><p>Please be aware that you can use the Search bar over on the right and down just a little >>><br />And don't forget we have a <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/p/faq.html">Categories</a> page and a <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/p/faq_04.html">FAQ</a> page, created to help you find answers more easily.</p><p>If you have found any help or comfort here, please reach out, in a comment or preferably by email, and let us know. Share your experiences and suggestions with us. Perhaps you can help us to help you. And others!</p><p>God bless you and thank you for visiting!!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><strong>Acts 17:11</strong></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-7543405782093177722023-11-26T04:55:00.015-05:002024-02-08T22:08:05.731-05:00Farewell To A FriendI wanted to write a post letting everyone know that the founder of this blog site, my good friend, Seeker of Truth, has passed away. I wanted to say a couple words to honor Seeker's memory. She deserves so much more than this, but we do what we can do with what we have.<div><br /></div><div>Seeker started this blog with her husband on April 17, 2008. She started it with these words:<br /><div></div><blockquote><div>A Warm Welcome to You, the Reader!</div><div>This blog is about the importance of seeking the truth of God's Word, for those in search of truth, and those leaving Legalism in search of truth: </div><div>When we consider what others say/teach about God's Word, it's vital to make sure it's TRUTH. We should NEVER take anyone's word for it, but ALWAYS prove it for our self. It's OUR responsibility. We cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. Don't we prefer the truth, whatever it may be? Even if it's not what we had thought? Of course! </div><div>Because we desire to PLEASE God! So... we do 'As Bereans Did.'</div></blockquote><div></div>Amen to that!<br /><br />When I escaped Armstrongism about four months later, I started my own blog. It was a way to vent and share ideas. I went looking around for others who were seeing the errors of the system and giving themselves permission to prove what they had been taught, just as the noble Bereans had done (ACT. 17: 10-11), regardless of where that truth lead them. Not many people were fighting this good fight back at that time. Not from a faith-based perspective, anyway. Wasn't hard to find Seeker and the ABD blog.</div><div><br /></div><div>Seeker and I both attended Ron Weinland groups, and we both wanted particularly to focus on him. We formed somewhat of a partnership. Then we tried to form a larger partnership with other bloggers out there at that time. Then we decided to try one grand unified blog where everyone can write. It wasn't but a few months later, on March 16, 2009, I closed my own blog and started writing here. The idea quickly grew past Ron Weinland and started addressing the larger ideas of Armstrongism that we began to see as we studied. We tried recruiting other authors. Soon, we had Bill, James D H Bruce, Corrinna, Caleb, Penny, and Martha, and not only that but a guest post from readers here and there, like Dillon, Centurion, Child Survivor, and others. </div><div>Seeker eventually retired from actively blogging. The day of the blog had come and gone, for the most part. But she left us with her blog to keep going until we felt like we had said enough, too. She didn't stop writing and praising God, she just went to other venues.<br /><br />None of this would have happened if it wasn't for Seeker. So many people were blessed because of what she did. All of the authors, guest authors, and readers around the world were blessed by God working through the seemingly small and insignificant efforts of one person. When I say people around the world, I mean it. We have gotten visitors and letters from literally all around the globe! All of those people who found any blessing from this effort have ultimately one person to thank for it. All blessed because one person followed the Holy Spirit and started a blog to write about grace and truth. She did what she could with what she had. Isn't it true that we plant and God provides the increase!</div><div><br /></div><div>Well, God harvests what He grows. Last night, He brought home a good friend and faithful witness for Christ who blessed many in His name. </div><div><br /></div><div>If there is any truth to what Charles Dickens stated when he wrote, "It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide [and turn what they can to happiness]," then truly Seeker did so. She will be missed! But I for one am confident wherever she is now she is working for Him still.</div><div><br /></div><div>Go, enjoy your rest. You've earned it. And shine on you crazy diamond.<br />Until we meet again.</div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-1724475340588866532020-08-22T10:15:00.035-04:002024-02-07T22:02:13.073-05:00How To Move Forward<div style="text-align: left;">
<p>I left Armstrongism in August of 2008. I remember that day like it was yesterday. What I've learned in these twelve years I cannot even begin to describe. Many of the things I learned I put here in this blog, but even more are not here. Let me tell you, there is a lot to learn. I want to share a couple summary ideas with you.</p><p>The thing I want to emphasize most is something that should be obvious and go without saying, but so help me I see people making mistakes here all the time. That is:<br /><br /><b>Un-learn everything you have learned in the COGs.</b><br /></p><p>Yes, un-learn everything you have learned in the COGs. To explain why, let's do a brief re-cap of the history of the COGs. </p><p>In 1843, the false prophet William Miller started preaching the return of Christ. It didn't happen, and is called "The Great Disappointment." He doubled down and failed again. Some of his many followers refused to un-learn what they had learned. Instead they tripled-down. They adopted the Sabbath doctrine from the Seventh Day Baptists and eventually named themselves the Seventh Day Adventists. Thus began one of the most ridiculous episodes in modern history - the life and times of Ellen G White. If you are not emotionally invested in her, and approach her writings with honesty, you will see how this woman must have been demon influenced. Many of the most outrageous cults in the last 150 years are directly descended from this Adventist movement. Some Adventists refused her leadership and split off to form the Church of God - 7th Day (COG7). This is the group who hired Herbert W (the W doesn't stand for anything) Armstrong, a down on his luck detergent salesman, as a Minister. HWA saw dollar signs and used his sales experience to reach more people over the radio. His new angle was a deep reliance on end-time prophecy. HWA split off and formed his own church, the Radio Church of God, which later renamed as the Worldwide Church of God. In 1933, HWA began to repeat the mistakes of William Miller from exactly a century earlier.<br /></p><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div align="center" style="text-align: left;">
"<i>...19 years after the first seige, or 585 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar made
his final siege, drove out all the Jews, took complete possession of the
land, and the Times of the Gentiles came fully in. And 2520 years
later, or 1936 A.D., the Times of the Gentiles will have completely
ENDED. As nearly as we can calculate from the dates of ancient history,
the year 1936 will see the END of the Times of the Gentiles. Those
"Times" have not been completely fulfilled until that year.</i>"</div>
<div align="center" style="text-align: left;">
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, pp.4-5</div></blockquote><p>The date came and went. And exactly like William Miller, HWA doubled down. No, he more than doubled down. HWA spent the rest of his life preaching the immediate return of Christ. Over and over and over his prophecies failed. The grandest of all was in 1972. We have articles detailing all of this. Did his followers un-learn what they had learned? No. They did exactly as the Adventists before them. <br /><br />When HWA died in 1986, his lieutenants peeled away to start their own church groups and promoted themselves to the rank of leader. So, you get what you have here today. Did they learn anything from the past 150 years (other than starting a church is a great way to make some easy money)? No. Here we are, with one tiny little splinter group after another competing for the spotlight, and the tithe dollar of the remaining members. Still teaching the same end-time scenarios that false prophet William Miller invented, still preaching the same Sabbath message that false prophet Ellen G White borrowed from the Seventh Day Baptists, still passing on the same garbage Alexander Hislop penned which has been proven false more times than I care to count, still holding to the doctrines and practices of false prophet Herbert W Armstrong. What are the results? False prophecy after false prophecy after false prophecy. Confusion upon confusion. Can you expect fresh water from this well?</p><p>It's not just the prophecy that you must un-learn, it's everything. Un-learn it all. "But, xHWA," you may exclaim to me, "certainly not everything! I would have to un-learn Jesus Himself." Yes, everything. "Blasphemy!" No. I tell you that God is on His throne and Jesus is His only begotten Son. But what you have learned about both the Father and the Son is both flawed as well as nowhere near the whole story. </p><p>There is a <u>great deal</u> more to learn about the Father and the Son that I cannot even begin to scratch the surface here. Un-learn the overly-simplified version of God that you have in your mind or else when you hear the rest of the story you will certainly be so confounded that you might even turn away from God. Think I'm crazy? There is a reason we say, "Armstrongism is an atheist-making machine."<br /></p><p>Hundreds and hundreds of people who have left the COGs have gotten so confused and so frustrated that they gave it all up and abandoned their faith. Why? There are many reasons. No one can say it's this one or maybe two things. But I can tell you that in my experience the theme underlying it all is that people leave Armsrtongism but take half of it with them. It was that half that was incompatible with their way forward and unable to handle the challenges.<br /><br />You have to un-learn even the <u>simple</u> things that you take for granted. Let me give you just a hint of a list here:<br /></p><p>The COG's teachings are not unique to the COGs. COG doctrine is a lot like Catholic doctrine. The Catholic Church is not the Whore of Babylon. Protestantism is not the Daughters of the Whore. The Trinity is not an un-Biblical and unfathomable contradiction. Christmas and Easter are not pagan.There is no dark period after the first century where Christianity was completely changed. Apocalyptic literature is highly symbolic and never meant to be taken literally. The United States is not modern day Israel. The Bible does have a few issues (no, that isn't a deal breaker!). Moses didn't write every word of the Pentateuch. The Bible sometimes does contain elements found in other cultures that are older than the Bible. The understanding, world view, and context of ancient Israel is VERY different from yours today. Israel was not the first people to worship Yahweh (not even close) (yes, this is absolutely compatible with our faith). Many elements in Jewish worship are borrowed from paganism. "Once pagan always pagan" is a lie.<br /><br />None of those things above, and there are a whole lot more than these I promise you, are deal breakers. God is on His throne. It all fits into the Biblical narrative. It's not the Biblical narrative that is flawed, it's your approach to it. I tell you, if you approach mainstream Christianity from a COG perspective, you will be hard pressed to accept them and will be more likely to give up your faith. How then can you handle the things that are <i>even more</i> difficult truths than the ones I've said above? I'll bet some of those things are a shock to you, yet they are demonstrably true. If you leave the COG and hold on to half of what they taught you, you are in danger. You need to be flexible. Bend, or you will break.<br /></p><p>It's not just the factual aspects, but even the very approach itself that you should leave behind. </p><p>No, you don't have to have every I dotted and T crossed. No, you don't need to have all the answers. You don't need to fit everything into a tidy little box. Humanity is messy, and God has chosen to work through us, so faith is by necessity a messy thing. The Bible is messy because God inspired humans to write it. Not just that but humans then edited it and translated it. If you leave the COGs yet maintain this trait of having to have everything figured out, you will break yourself. I am not saying give up study, just to change your approach.</p><p>Do you want the answer to what the "thorn in the flesh" was that Paul had? Here is the answer:<br /> We don't know.<br />And that's OK. We don't need to know. And we won't know until we ask him ourselves. Saying we don't know is the most honest, most relieving thing we can say. Just takes some getting used to.</p><p>Un-learn what you have learned in the COGs and bring yourself back to the one, simple, and foundational idea of faith. Faith. It's a simple, one-syllable word. Yet it is as profound as the universe itself. <br /><br />If you can wipe the slate clean, clear your mind, let go, and possess nothing whatsoever in this life but belief that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, then you have everything else already. He possesses all things. In Him you possess all things. Faith is literally all you need and all He demands of you. Contemplate this. Revel in this. Revel in Him. It's all about Him! Because Jesus accomplished His goals, and you are one with Him in faith, then in Him all your goals are already accomplished. He did it. Accept His gift. Accept it, and never let go.<br /></p><p>Soon the wheel will turn and you will start looking more deeply into things again. This is how it goes. We start with a basic faith, we get interested in a detail, which leads to other details, which eventually complicates the entire business and makes amok of everything, then we do a reset and come back to the simplicity of a basic faith again. The wheel forever turns. </p><p>Eventually you will want to investigate some matter more deeply. Do it! Only do it without the COG baggage. You may be tempted to say, "I need no man to teach me; I am not going to trust in anything other people say or write." I say to you, this is a clear indicator that you have <u>not</u> left behind your COG indoctrination. You are still caught up in black and white thinking. You thought that to leave the COGs behind you must now do the opposite? No! Doing the opposite is just falling into the other ditch. It's not black and white. The world is not just filled with shades of grey, but a 16 million colors besides. If you step out to take on the world like a teenager out of school, you will soon learn the world is far more ready for you than you are for it. When you have this kind of approach, you will fall into the same old ditches that millions before you have fallen into. Don't reject what people have written, just don't be naive about it. Some of it should be rejected because it's garbage, but don't reject it all - and especially not just to spite your past. There is an ocean of information out there which you haven't even been exposed to yet. It's not all false! There are also 2,000 years of lessons and debates in the Christian experience you probably haven't read. "In the multitude of counselors there is safety." You don't need to make the same mistakes. You don't need to reject it all, or reinvent the wheel, or become a scholar so you can review every little thing for yourself. There are some excellent resources out there already. Use the excellent ones and reject the rest. This requires a certain flexibility.<br />Want to know a secret? You will eventually find that not everything the COGs teach is false!</p><p>You might not understand why I tell you to let go of the COG now and you will eventually circle back to some few parts of it later. When you get to where I am now, at that time you will understand. But I digress.<br /></p><p>Challenges to your faith will come. Meet them head on! The truth will take care of itself. I can give you this advice - draw on your past experiences of the presence of God in your life. </p><p>When the "dark night of the soul" comes upon you - as it will (and not just one time only) - recall those times in your past when you felt the presence of God and saw His hand at work in your life. Don't discount your past experiences. Don't discount the experiences of others, either. The Bible is the past experiences of people who dealt with God. You will come to a crossroads. I tell you now, when you stand there it isn't going to be as simple as you might think. You will have a choice to make. In fact there are three paths at any crossroad, not just two! The three roads are these: 1) you can remain in faith, 2) you can go into faithlessness, or 3) you can sit on a fence and waffle back and forth. Set your mind to believe that God is real and His only Son is Jesus Christ, because that is your life experience and it matters, and this decision will make the rest of your life a whole lot simpler.</p><p>To those who went down road #2, what I just said sounds like a cop out. No, it isn't. I promise you that faith isn't just a blind thing. God has given and still yet gives evidence. Evidence is a rational thing. Therefore, faith is a rational thing. So is the decision to remain in faith. We are rational beings.</p><p>The entire book of Revelation is far less about some future events and more about how you approach life RIGHT NOW. We've had the book for nearly 2,000 years. Everyone who has read it has waited for the fulfillment but had to apply its lessons to their lives in their time. What does it say to us? <br /><br />(REV 1: 3) Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near. [Even today! Every day!]</p><p>Hear it and take it to heart. Look past the apocalyptic imagery, stop trying to figure out the who and the when, and see the big picture of what it is really saying. Learn the lessons and make the conscious decision to incorporate the lessons into your life. What lessons? Does I Peter 4: 17 not tell us to "obey the Gospel of God"? What do you mean "obey the Gospel"? If the Gospel is the good news, what is there to obey? Faith! Faith is the lesson!</p><p>We obey by maintaining faith in the truth of it. Jesus is Lord. He did die on the cross and on the third day rose again and ascend into Heaven. He is who He says He is and will do what He says He will do. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. His Kingdom will have no end. All else are wolves and imposters. There are imposters but there is the true. There are upheavals but there is a reward. And this very faith, which we choose and upon which we insist, will guide our lives ...if we let it. This is the understanding of the Book of Revelation. Faith. In our regular and every day lives.<br /></p><p>Is it not obvious, even axiomatic, that this is a conscious, rational decision for us to make? Then why wonder when I say to consciously, rationally make the decision? When you stand at that crossroads, recall your experiences and the experiences of others and make the conscious decision to be a Christian. That decision is the very purpose of the crossroads metaphor in the first place. </p><p>"<i>I have experienced God in my life. I have seen God at work in my life and the lives of many others. I will not discount these experiences. I am having doubts and am very confused, but I know this is for a purpose that I will eventually come to understand. I will not throw it all away. I will not sit on a fence. Lord Jesus, you are my Lord, and I choose to side with you. Help my unbelief!</i>"<br /></p><p>And then, to the faith in our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus, <b>hold fast</b>!</p><p>So to sum up, the best advice I can give you today, when you leave your COG and step out into a wider world, are these two things:</p><p>1) Un-learn what you have learned.<br />2) Insist on faith.</p><p>That said, I advise you to take this with you - God allowed you to have the COG experience you did for a reason. What is that reason? Find the good, and be thankful to God for it. You can be miserable, or bitter, or fearful, or thankful. Be thankful! God has never abandoned you and it wasn't all for naught.<br /></p><p>God bless you and keep you and may the Spirit of Holiness go with you and guide you always. Thank you for having visited this blog.<br /><br /></p>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<p>************</p>
<p>It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</p>
<p><b>Acts 17:11</b></p>
<p>************</p></div>xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-44974543102356806152020-05-01T10:58:00.006-04:002024-02-10T21:10:26.467-05:00Dave Pack Is A Fraud<div style="text-align: left;">
Back on March 31, 2020 we posted an article called "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2020/03/covid-19-no-more-fearmongering.html" target="_blank">COVID-19: No More Fearmongering</a>". In that post I vented some frustration on the blatant fear mongering inherent in Armstrongism. What got me started was No2HWA over at the Banned By HWA blog reported about Dave Pack telling his flock that they will not see another Sabbath. In my Fearmongering article, I stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"God did not send Dave Pack this prediction. If you read this blog post <u>on or after May 1, 2020</u>, then you have your proof that Jesus did not come by "next Sabbath" and you are surrounded by a <b>false</b> system."</blockquote>
Guess what day it is? (No, not Hump Day.) It's May 1, 2020. And SURPRISE! Jesus did not make his second coming that week as Pack assured us.<br />
<br />
So Dave Pack asked all of his top Ministers and they all agreed that none of them could see how we would be here another week. Well, it hasn't just been a week but another month. Out of the generosity of our hearts we gave Pack an extra month. Here we are. Not a single one of them could see how we would be here today reading this. Not. A. Single. One.<br />
<br />
Funniest thing is, No2HWA has plenty of other articles in the meantime about how Pack just kept making more and more statements. Any hint of an apology, or remorse? No. And that, dear reader, is how it always goes. That's how it's been going since 1843. When are people currently in the system going to say enough is enough?</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">===UPDATE 1/1/2023===<br />Still here! We haven't died. We haven't been Armageddoned. No return of Hitler or escape to Petra. About a thousand new Pack predictions have all come and gone since this article was written.</div><div style="text-align: left;">Dave Pack is a fraud.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<b>Acts 17:11</b><br />
************</div>
xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-52902067844954318862020-04-02T22:35:00.001-04:002024-01-20T11:27:16.331-05:00Passover in the Age of Social Distancing <div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4af3XvbcEp0/XoFfDCPE7YI/AAAAAAAAAYs/DyJuM5AT274HUVZz9G0TSjZ0NPtt-yyVACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/hand%2Bwashing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="266" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4af3XvbcEp0/XoFfDCPE7YI/AAAAAAAAAYs/DyJuM5AT274HUVZz9G0TSjZ0NPtt-yyVACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/hand%2Bwashing.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
In recent weeks, Christians have found themselves navigating waters that have been relatively uncharted for a century. As the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19 has spread across the globe, leaders worldwide have started placing restrictions on social gatherings in attempts to limit transmission. Many state and national leaders have requested that U.S. Residents restrict group meetings to 10 or fewer individuals; some have gone as far as asking residents to stay home at all times unless except for essentials like groceries, medical attention or exercise.<br />
<br />
These requests have challenged leaders from all denominations, now forced to help the church come together as one body – in a hundred separate homes. How can individuals serve others as the hands and feet of Jesus when all their limbs are required to maintain six feet of distance. Many churches have instituted online services. Some have opened drive-thru centers to hand out public assistance. But few seem to have found a good solution for handling communion – the commemoration of bread and wine.<br />
<br />
While all Christian traditions adopt this sacrament, differing theological viewpoints affect how the ritual is practiced. Many protestants churches view communion as an important, yet symbolic, ritual memorializing Christ's sacrifice in remembrance “as often as” it is done. Some churches practice it weekly; others monthly; still others quarterly. In the current situation, many feel relatively comfortable waiting indefinitely for the next safe opportunity.<br />
<br />
Catholics vary some in their belief about communion, but generally view the practice less symbolically and more as a ritual to be practiced regularly. The elements are served at every mass; but as I understand, it is generally accepted that Catholics should take communion at least once per year; preferably around Easter. In my area, the diocesan archbishops has granted dispensation from mass – – to all within our district until the crisis passes.<br />
<br />
It's more challenging to clearly define the views of the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">Churches of God</a>, since they never had a systematic theology and each splinter has its own flavor. Generally, though, the COGs view Passover – their annual communion service – as an observance critical to salvation. This view is based on Numbers 9:13:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>But if anyone who is ceremonially clean and not on a journey fails to celebrate the Passover, they must be cut off from their people for not presenting the Lord's offering at the appointed time. They will bear the consequences of their sin. </i></div>
<br />
This application is in keeping with COG teachings on <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/just-what-do-you-mean-justified.html">“ongoing justification”</a> - that man is initially reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice, but then is responsible for <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">keeping his own slate clean</a> – to varying extents – through a <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">track record </a>of repentance and spiritual growth. In short, if you're required to keep your library record up to date, the appointment for renewing your library card is critical. and the schedule for available renewals is pretty limited - in this case, one evening per year.<br />
<br />
I clearly no longer accept the reasoning behind the annual COG service, for both theological reasons and practical ones. <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/confusing-covenants.html">Covenants aside</a>, I find that annualizing the spiritual disciplines communion is intended to foster undermines our Christian walk. If we wait several months to get serious about a matter of sin in our lives, they have likely already taken root. If we wait almost a year to restore a relationship - and only do it because we <b><i>have </i></b>to - that relationship is likely over. If we make examination and reconciliation an annual practice, our personal holiness and relationships suffer.<br />
<br />
Regardless of my reasons, many who I know and love disagree. And that's who I want to talk to today. Because I have no doubt that COG leaders are currently wrestling with decisions about the upcoming Passover. I also know that small groups of members are considering meeting for Passover even if their organizational leaders cancel official services. And I'm concerned about the graying COG population, given the risk COVID-19 poses to the elderly. Today I'd like to give some food for thought - or at least consideration - advocating NOT gathering for Passover.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>God created quarantining</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCt8tGH8b1A/XoVVz0PKs9I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/2Zdc3OwAa9wH36f8iHtoONSi_bdJKVB0QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/quarantine%2Bbubble.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCt8tGH8b1A/XoVVz0PKs9I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/2Zdc3OwAa9wH36f8iHtoONSi_bdJKVB0QCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/quarantine%2Bbubble.jpg" /></a></div>
First of all, the concept of social distancing to prevent illness is biblical - they're discussed in both Leviticus and Numbers. God mandated that Israelites who had symptoms of leprosy, or who had a suspicious discharge (among other concerns) stayed outside the camp until their <br />
symptoms passed. This was intended to prevent contagion from spreading through the camp. Social distancing is a similar concept, except we avoid infecting others - or being infected - by isolating ourselves from the public by staying on our own property. Also, today, infection isn't as easily recognized as a seeping wound. COVID-19 has a lengthy incubation period, so it's possible to infect others unknowingly before knowing you're sick. As a result, retreating to your own home – and taking more drastic isolation measures if you're symptomatic – makes practical and biblical sense.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Second Passover</b><br />
<br />
God certainly wants us to fear and obey Him, but He's also a merciful God who understands that life is messy. Jesus experienced it firsthand; but we even see evidence of this in the Old Testament. In His wisdom, God established a second Passover for Israel when His quarantining mandates made people unclean. In Numbers 9, we see that a group of men who handled a dead body were concerned about being cuff off from Israel because they missed the Passover. God directly told Moses that those men could wait a month.<br />
<br />
God's instruction didn't apply only to the ceremonially unclean - it even applied to those who were “away on a trip” during the first Passover. The Bible doesn't elaborate why men would be traveling near Passover - I can only assume it would be for an unexpected or critical reason. Most Israelites wouldn't choose to travel at that time. Regardless, this provision shows that God wants us to take Him seriously - but understands that life is messy. Will our current messiness clear by May 8? I doubt it. President Trump recently extended social distancing recommendations to April 30, and stated society might return to more normalcy by June 1. But an extra month would give church leaders - and the experts informing them - more time and data to evaluate.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Passover at Home </b><br />
<br />
Another possibility is keeping Passover at home. It's unconventional - but what isn't right <br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aXu0FmUssnQ/XoVXbHgxReI/AAAAAAAAAac/s0J8ulLR86gkjihRHtnqfHRTqbXAjy8KQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/house%2Bchurch.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="797" data-original-width="1140" height="139" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aXu0FmUssnQ/XoVXbHgxReI/AAAAAAAAAac/s0J8ulLR86gkjihRHtnqfHRTqbXAjy8KQCLcBGAsYHQ/s200/house%2Bchurch.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pretend there's fewer than 10 here.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
now. Most churches have already been tuning in to weekly services at home. There's no reason Passover couldn't be handled the same way. Chances are good that you already have unleavened bread at home (if not, and you're considering this option, I'm happy to send you a recipe).<br />
<br />
But what about foot washing? Especially if you live alone?<br />
<br />
Here's the thing. Foot washing is a beautiful symbol of Christ's humility and submission. It's an amazing symbol, and there's not one thing wrong with doing it ourselves. But in scripture, we have no evidence this practice was repeated in following years. New Testament authors repeatedly reference taking the bread and the wine, but foot washing is not a focus of those passages. Is it a beautiful reminder? Absolutely. Is it possible to do from 6 feet away? No. And does it appear to play into our salvation? Honestly, I don't see it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Sacrificial love</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-El7ikinkqMU/XoVVD5auDoI/AAAAAAAAAaI/nh2hnB-IsKQ6Zi7lcIlOKdoO0SdzzKddACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/be%2Bmy%2Bquarantine.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-El7ikinkqMU/XoVVD5auDoI/AAAAAAAAAaI/nh2hnB-IsKQ6Zi7lcIlOKdoO0SdzzKddACLcBGAsYHQ/s200/be%2Bmy%2Bquarantine.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<br />
During the Lord's Supper itself, where Jesus established the tradition of communion, He also told us that love would be the mark of His followers. The word used in this passage is a form of <i>agape</i>, or sacrificial, unselfish love characterized by outflowing concern for others. Throughout the New Testament, we see examples where Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others made choices that cost them personally in order to benefit others.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So what does that mean today? It means we may need to sacrifice our comfort and our preferences for the good of others. You may be young and healthy (although that's not a guarantee), but your graying COG brethren to whom you risk passing the virus are not. This knowledge has led to restrictions on assisted living and nursing home visits. It is not loving your elderly neighbor to risk passing the virus to them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Bible instructs us to respect governing authorities</b><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ofAD2YmvAeA/XoVSRIyDNoI/AAAAAAAAAZc/hQm9hUJtVesmxEaTBA5PRPrfpO1pWk8YwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/the%2Briver.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ofAD2YmvAeA/XoVSRIyDNoI/AAAAAAAAAZc/hQm9hUJtVesmxEaTBA5PRPrfpO1pWk8YwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/the%2Briver.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Service at the River church held March 29, 2020</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Early this week, news leaked that a megachurch in Tampa, Florida, preached before a crowd of several hundred parishioners over the weekend. Many Christians were shocked that the River at Tampa Bay Church ignored local orders restricting gatherings in non-essential services to 10 individuals or fewer. Other Christians were shocked when the pastor, Rodney Howard-Browne, was arrested.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I don't intend to rehash the arguments for and against Howard-Browne here - I'm sure we'll hear them <i>ad nauseum </i>in coming weeks. I've also heard of earlier instances where churches held services while restrictions on crowds larger than 50 were in place for weighty reasons like "we usually only have 80 fewer or people anyway" or "we didn't like the government telling us we couldn't meet."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PZwi_GlZ8Uc/XoVTOXmqxfI/AAAAAAAAAZw/YmJ1NERD2xw1jTHTI0Xuk_Quw5L0TN_vACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/what.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="412" data-original-width="600" height="219" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PZwi_GlZ8Uc/XoVTOXmqxfI/AAAAAAAAAZw/YmJ1NERD2xw1jTHTI0Xuk_Quw5L0TN_vACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/what.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I recognize that there are complex constitutional questions, among other nuanced issues, involved in this debate. But the Bible came before the U.S. Constitution. And Romans 13 clearly instructs Christians to obey the governing authorities, unless our leaders instruct us to commit an immoral act or to contradict God's instructions. I don't believe that requesting people temporarily limit gathering crosses this threshold. No one is singling out churches in this request - it's ALL GROUPS. No one is forcing church leaders to change their message, editing their sermons, or restricting access to broadcast media. It's not ideal, it's not fun - but it's not persecution.</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>This has all happened before </b><br />
<br />
The decisions we're being forced to make may seem unbelievable, but they're not unprecedented. Church leaders had to consider similar issues during the Bubonic Plague, and more recently, in the Spanish Flu outbreak. Martin Luther, father of the Reformation, had this to say regarding whether Christians should flee the Plague, in a surviving letter to the Rev. Dr. John Hess:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine and take it.<b> I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance inflict and pollute others and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. </b>If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs me however I shall not avoid place or person but will go freely as stated above. See this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God."</i></blockquote>
<br />
Throughout history, it's highly likely that Christians have occasionally missed taking the bread and the wine without jeopardizing their salvation. For example, we know Paul taught and received visitors while under house arrest. But it's unlikely he was able to continue Passover and other religious traditions as scheduled while in Roman prison in the late 50s A.D. We know he wasn't the only disciple imprisoned before martyrdom. Given the chaos that has defined much of human history, it's improbable that believers have been able to observe the Passover on the exact date, every year, for more than two thousand years. (This is just one more reason that ongoing justification, partially based on dates and observances, is implausible in my eyes).<br />
<br />
We should, as Luther stated, pray for protection. We should ask God to wipe this virus out. And He could. But I'm not expecting it. God can do anything, and a miracle of epic proportions would capture the world's attention, for His glory. But my gut says He would have stepped in by now if that was part of the plan. Like everything else in His creation, God designed viruses for natural purposes. And like everything else He made, He designed them to be efficient and effective. In our fallen world, many things intended for natural purposes have spun out of control. xHWA wrote an excellent piece earlier this week explaining why COVID-19 is <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2020/03/covid-19-no-more-fearmongering.html"><i>not </i>a sign</a> that Jesus' return is imminent, despite what some COG leaders are saying. Boils are the only human illness specifically named in prophecy, although the word translated as "pestilence" can have broad meanings, including human illness. In general, human life isn't expected to get <i>easier </i>as time draws to a close. While we should not be ruled by fear, I'm not getting my hopes up for a quick fix, either.<br />
<br />
Really, there's only one reason for hope. Thankfully, it's a pretty big one.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.</i> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>- John 3:14-15</i></blockquote>
In this passage, Jesus cited a miracle from the book of Numbers, when God was punishing Israel for instance number 867,213 of disobedience and faithlessness. God sent serpents to <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6UFUnmcmyL8/XoafI_0cL9I/AAAAAAAAAbA/erxv2w3Ll74rI4wrwE1Yp8l_HuaXkDpWwCEwYBhgLKs4DAMBZVoDyehMuAeWSutCDPM92ZpyiEvAPonOL6Jl381BdOX0cuMd_e4EdvMpm47ACipXy_GKr0C4wtFGMEorzbFyTHM0gOw-g75Y2lfVxkL_M-vTPQw7_4xuzTrpNEOZOQqoGS7Ot64p67ckFBq3hyHqxzgexwwX_8MMWOPm6jG7fbOG4yFMvD1qGCvMnUcNxDBiR5fm2rltlRT7N0Z0vfafLNmQvGtoq5rArvbqsiikrGsOimY-2lkKSXGt6sc6QAZsj447_og-1qE8_UpJFAlEhB4f0W7s20TnA9U-2ydkw0y8ZPE6vCeGYdWj7gIpYkxciJcdkyQhzmLsNvwEiivkvUle1s8sJTkWeDtm-9GcFaGN1ty3ruzuH4-DQr79L2KiUinnssjP9tZlfFkefVth9zZmap5xl3JsjSHiCusOjqtdOwQSiodMGkJ41V0o1cQ2UxFo4lUEQpvOd9nJTW6ODLRtAt3anN14X0FSfhiT2php8pQFF1go0YJ4bqQAg9WtiZJPCgWpbq_w1bPyffMMTkhFXZsd36F7trKapvpG2tPZVoEAMpdmPVoka-EqVRAwUAneLt5HdolSkXAs9a9ZkM7BYibgYUcodIrJgMLLDmvQF/s1600/snake%2Bon%2Ba%2Bpole.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="240" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6UFUnmcmyL8/XoafI_0cL9I/AAAAAAAAAbA/erxv2w3Ll74rI4wrwE1Yp8l_HuaXkDpWwCEwYBhgLKs4DAMBZVoDyehMuAeWSutCDPM92ZpyiEvAPonOL6Jl381BdOX0cuMd_e4EdvMpm47ACipXy_GKr0C4wtFGMEorzbFyTHM0gOw-g75Y2lfVxkL_M-vTPQw7_4xuzTrpNEOZOQqoGS7Ot64p67ckFBq3hyHqxzgexwwX_8MMWOPm6jG7fbOG4yFMvD1qGCvMnUcNxDBiR5fm2rltlRT7N0Z0vfafLNmQvGtoq5rArvbqsiikrGsOimY-2lkKSXGt6sc6QAZsj447_og-1qE8_UpJFAlEhB4f0W7s20TnA9U-2ydkw0y8ZPE6vCeGYdWj7gIpYkxciJcdkyQhzmLsNvwEiivkvUle1s8sJTkWeDtm-9GcFaGN1ty3ruzuH4-DQr79L2KiUinnssjP9tZlfFkefVth9zZmap5xl3JsjSHiCusOjqtdOwQSiodMGkJ41V0o1cQ2UxFo4lUEQpvOd9nJTW6ODLRtAt3anN14X0FSfhiT2php8pQFF1go0YJ4bqQAg9WtiZJPCgWpbq_w1bPyffMMTkhFXZsd36F7trKapvpG2tPZVoEAMpdmPVoka-EqVRAwUAneLt5HdolSkXAs9a9ZkM7BYibgYUcodIrJgMLLDmvQF/s320/snake%2Bon%2Ba%2Bpole.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
torment the Israelites. Many were bitten and died, but even then, God made a way for those who repented to live. The Lord instructed Moses to make a bronze serpent and lift it up among the congregation. Those who were bitten but looked on the serpent lived.<br />
<br />
If there's one thing that hits home at this time of year, it's that sin has bitten us all. Maybe that lesson is hitting you harder this year than in the past. Maybe virus-forced disruption to your usual preparation <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2019/04/boost-your-spiritual-credit-rating-this.html">routine </a>has left you wondering whether you've <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened.html">done enough</a> to be <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2017/04/you-will-never-be-worthy.html">worthy </a>to take the Passover. Or maybe the time you've spent thinking during extended periods of down time has convinced you that you aren't.<br />
<br />
In the example Jesus cited, there was Iittle the Israelites could do. They were bitten. They were dying. They couldn't hobble over to Moses. They couldn't touch the pole. All they could do was look at the bronze serpent in faith. And hope.<br />
<br />
Good thing that was the one thing they needed to do.<br />
<br />
And it's the one thing we need to do, too. Your eternal life doesn't hinge on your ability to fully remove leaven from your home, your vehicle or your church hall. It doesn't hinge on washing feet. It doesn't hinge on drinking bread or wine in the same room as your pastor - or even on a specific day. It hinges on recognizing that you aren't worthy and never will be, on repenting of your sin, and on placing your faith in God's promise of salvation to those who fully place their faith in Jesus' sacrifice for them. In His work instead of yours. That's more important to your future than deleavening, washing feet, wearing a mask or bathing in hand sanitizer.<br />
<br />
Best of all, you can do at home.<br />
<br />
In fact, please do it at home.<br />
<br />
Stay safe, and know that even when we don't have time to post, you're still in our thoughts and prayers.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-69807037488679955722020-03-31T09:42:00.007-04:002024-01-21T16:56:41.226-05:00COVID-19: No More Fearmongering<div style="text-align: left;">
I haven't posted in quite a while. Just couldn't let the COVID-19 situation go by without one. I needed to get my thoughts out regarding the Church of God leaders who make some sort of prediction about Jesus' imminent return. <br />
<br />
Let's start at the start - the Church of God splinter groups all come from the Worldwide Church of God which was founded by Herbert Armstrong. Herbert Armstrong was a minister in the Church of God (Seventh Day). The COG7 was founded by former Elders in the Adventist movement - most particularly Gilbert Cranmer - who had disagreements over Ellen G White. The Adventist movement was started by William Miller in the <b>late 1830s</b>.<br />
I want to emphasize the time here. Late 1830s. That was roughly 180 years ago. We are just shy of 200 years away.<br />
<br />
Why is that important? Because of what William Miller was doing. William Miller decided that he had figured out Biblical Prophecy and preached that Jesus would return in 1843. Clearly that did not happen. Undeterred, he reset the date for 1844. That also failed. He gave up but his followers did not. Jesus' second coming is called the Second Advent. Miller's followers were therefore called Adventists. This is how the Adventist movement started. They only adopted the Sabbath later. Their origin, their foundation, their entire genesis is in false prophecy.<br />
Ellen G White continued to move the goal posts. Predictions came and predictions went until her death in 1915. Nothing came to pass in all those 75 or so years. Undeterred, her followers continue to this day. And not just her followers, but the many, many off-shoots of the Adventist movement, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Hebrew Roots movement, the Church of God (Seventh Day) - who, to their credit tend to stay away from prophecy - and, of course, the Worldwide Church of God.<br />
<br />
In the early 1930s, Herbert W Armstrong started his own ministry on the sly, not letting his COG7 leaders know. What did he do? Let's take a look at his message:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div align="center" style="text-align: left;">
"<i>...19 years after the first seige, or 585 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar made
his final siege, drove out all the Jews, took complete possession of the
land, and the Times of the Gentiles came fully in. And 2520 years
later, or 1936 A.D., the Times of the Gentiles will have completely
ENDED. As nearly as we can calculate from the dates of ancient history,
the year 1936 will see the END of the Times of the Gentiles. Those
"Times" have not been completely fulfilled until that year.</i>"</div>
<div align="center" style="text-align: left;">
-Herbert Armstrong, Plain Truth, June/July 1934, pp.4-5</div>
</blockquote>
That's right. He started with false prophecy about the imminent return of Christ. Did Jesus return in 1936? No. Did that stop Mr. Armstrong? No.<br />
To save myself the time and effort of writing all this out again, I will direct you to our article "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2009/08/all-systems-are-go.html">All Systems Are GO!</a>" where we document HWA's repeated false prophesies that did not stop until his death. <br />
<br />
HWA tried to weasel out of it all by claiming that he didn't "prophesy" but "predict." No. He DID prophesy! We have documented it. Read our article, "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/09/an-inconvenient-plain-truth.html">An Inconvenient Plain Truth</a>" and see. We document over 60 time-specific prophecies from one small window of time, the 1950's, and some of those were done <i>in the name and authority of the Almighty God</i>. That's 60 time-specific prophetic failures, from only one publication, from only one decade. How many more are there? Countless!<br />
<br />
We have plenty more articles that you can find on our <a href="https://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/p/faq.html">Categories</a> page.<br />
<br />
Now, you might be thinking, "How is any of this relevant to me? This isn't 1972 and I don't follow Herbert Armstrong." It is relevant to you because it wasn't just William Miller, or Ellen G White, or Herbert Armstrong, but everyone that followed those people - including the leaders of the Church of God splinter groups today. And those people are relevant. When Dave Pack named his group "Restored" what do you suppose he was restoring? Why, the Worldwide Church of God, of course! Just Google it. It says so right there. When Gerald Flurry named his group "Philadelphia Church of God" it was because that was the name Herbert Armstrong chose for his next church, should the government of California force him to give up leadership of the WCG in the Receivership debacle in the later 1970s. The name of Worldwide Church of God would be abandoned for Philadelphia Church of God. Why do all Church of God groups call themselves <i>Church of God</i>? Because they all come from the Worldwide Church of God, which started as the Radio Church of God, which came from the Church of God (Seventh Day). They are not just following naming convention here. This is a continuation in every sense. Herbert Armstrong may not be directly relevant to you, but he is directly relevant to every leader of every Church of God splinter - and that makes this relevant to you. He is relevant to the entire system.<br />
<br />
If you are a member of a Church of God splinter, you come from an organization that was born in false prophecy. It was raised on false prophecy. It makes its living off of false prophecy. And to this very minute it is led by men and women who continue the family tradition without shame or remorse.<br />
<br />
No2HWA over at the <a href="https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Banned By HWA</a> blog reports that Dave Pack is telling his flock that <a href="https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2020/03/restored-church-of-god-return-of-christ.html?fbclid=IwAR2IEjrSAmbsqY4UHHdR_bjdmr13sMHfcYFDAM_eIFl5lCapUKcF_NqZ4Gc">they will not see another Sabbath</a>. Pack isn't going to stop when that fails. Ron Weinland said the end would come in 2008. He doubled down for 2012 and that failed. I will not waste the energy to collect more examples, but we all know they are all around. You have personally experienced a conversation with content much like this, no doubt.<br />
<br />
But I want you to ask yourself - does the COVID-19 pandemic really meet the requirements of the imminent return of Christ, as taught by the Church of God movement? Does it? No.<br />
<br />
Where is the Beast Power? I don't see Germany rising, do you? I don't see Italy doing anything but suffering. Where is the World War? Where is the famine killing over a billion people? Where is the False Prophet? I mean THE False Prophet of Revelation, not Dave Pack. The Pope in Rome isn't going around raising armies and moving the Vatican to Jerusalem right now. In fact, he is all alone; just as isolated as the rest of us. Where are the signs and wonders? Where are the Two Witnesses? I don't even know where Ron and Laura Weinland are right now. Probably jail, again. Where is ANY of the rest of the end time narrative? Nowhere.<br />
<br />
You have one thing, the SARS-COV-2 virus, causing one plague, the COVID-19 disease, which is infecting millions, and killing thousands, and will burn itself out in a few more weeks from now. The response has been dangerous to the world economy, yes, but it hasn't been terminal. The quarantines will lift. The unemployed will return to work. The economy will be in recession, maybe even depression, for a while, but it will come back fairly soon. And when this happens what will you have? Among other things, like a job, you will have more evidence of false prophecy.<br />
<br />
I wonder - what will you do with it?<br />
<br />
Will you take almost 200 years of unrelenting false prophecy to heart? Will you hold yourself and others to a higher standard of evidence from now on? Will you stop tolerating wild speculation? Will you understand, and I mean truly understand, that a church getting this many things wrong cannot possibly have any authority on prophecy? Will you finally give yourself permission to question the teachings on prophecy? Will you reconsider what you have been taught and take steps anew to understand what the Bible is <i>actually</i> saying in prophecy? Will you hold your leaders to account?<br />
-Or- <br />
Will you continue on as normal? All systems GO! Will you wait and hope for the next bit of tragedy to stoke up that flame inside you? Riding the rush of schadenfreude and Terror-porn? Will you continue to fall for it over and over and over again, year after year, time after time, again and again and again. until, like Ellen G White, Charles Taze Russell, Herbert Armstrong, Rod Meredith, Gerald Flurry, and so many others, you pass away from this life wondering why nothing happened?<br />
<br />
I sure hope you choose the former! I sure hope you hold these false prophets to account.<br />
<br />
I have a suggestion! Write or speak to them and tell them you will not pay one more cent in tithes until they can prove to you that they speak for God where prophecy is concerned. You will not pay one more copper penny until their prophecies start coming true, in specific ways. Don't let them put it back on you by asking, "How?" Don't let them back away with arguments over "predict" vs "prophesy." Don't let them gaslight you and place fault on you for holding them to account. You put their failure at their feet and let them get themselves out of it.<br />
<br />
No more fear mongering! No more profiting off of misery! No more false prophecy! No more!<br />
<br />
Are you afraid? I am! It's natural to be afraid. It is a perfectly normal human response to want a way out of uncertainty and to look for comfort. It is comforting to hear that Jesus is coming next week. It is comforting to think you won't have to endure anything further because in 7 days you're out of here. The problem is it's a false hope. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a <span style="color: red;">lie</span>. God did not send Dave Pack this prediction. God didn't deceive him, or Satan, or Ron Weinland, or anyone else, causing them to give a <i>seemingly</i> false message to throw Satan off the trail. If you read this blog post <u>on or after May 1, 2020</u>, then you have your proof that Jesus did not come by "next Sabbath" and you are surrounded by a <b>false</b> system. False prophets are profiting off of your fear. You are afraid, you buy into their message, and that message gives you a temporary, though false, hope. Then the message fails and they go on to the next opportunity to make money form people's misery. They have been doing this for almost 200 years. 200 years of failure and going on as if nothing happened. Don't allow them to do this to you any longer!<br />
<br />
No more fear mongering!</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Where else am I going to go," you ask? "Who else has the <i>true</i> doctrines, like the Sabbath," you wonder? We do have suggestion that might possibly, just maybe, help you in that. Read our articles. We would like to assist you in finding those true doctrines and who else has them. Are you sure false prophets have true doctrine?<br />I bet you wanted something a little more immediate and material. Tell you what. I don't usually do this, but it helped me, so I will suggest it to you: go to the Church of God (Seventh Day). You need a safe place that gets you away from those false prophets but still has the Sabbath? There you have it. Reach out to them, attend their services, and <i>then</i> read our material here at ABD.<br />
<br />
Finally, I want to ask God's blessings on you all. He loves you. He cares for you. When you suffer, He suffers with you. Is this a dark time? Yes. These things happen. Remember, Ezekiel and Daniel were taken in exile to Babylon even though they were righteous. Remember, the Apostles were all murdered, but one. Remember, Jesus specifically said we will have tribulation in this life. Bad things happen to good people! It doesn't mean God is particularly angry at you. Sometimes towers fall on people, and sometimes plagues disrupt lives indiscriminately. That's life. It doesn't mean there is no God. It doesn't mean He is golfing while we suffer. It just means there is a problem here below, and has been since that terrible decision our first parents made in Eden. This said, don't take unnecessary risks! I know you may be hoping on hope that Jesus will return and you won't have to face this current tribulation. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen this month. Nothing else is in place at this time. You will have to face it with the rest of us. So, PLEASE, take every precaution and stay isolated. I will be praying for and with you. God bless you and preserve you! God keep you safe and secure! God provide and protect you! God have mercy on us all who look to Him. I pray in His Son's Holy Name. Amen.<br />
<br />
<u><b>UPDATED</b></u>: See our follow-up article posted on May 1, 2020: "<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2020/05/dave-pack-is-fraud.html">Dave Pack Is A Fraud</a>."<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<b>Acts 17:11</b><br />
************</div>
xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-25598994773115162982019-10-13T07:32:00.002-04:002024-01-23T20:11:55.686-05:00Our prayer for you this Feast of Tabernacles<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HK6SAIt75wI/XaMJkDFOdxI/AAAAAAAAAXk/KWg3D9aBuXMVWRNzmpWOBuqOO11D6fIrgCEwYBhgL/s1600/left%2Bout.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="255" data-original-width="471" height="173" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HK6SAIt75wI/XaMJkDFOdxI/AAAAAAAAAXk/KWg3D9aBuXMVWRNzmpWOBuqOO11D6fIrgCEwYBhgL/s320/left%2Bout.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Every year, As Bereans Did likes to offer some food for thought with regards to the fall holy days. This year, we spent some time in prayer trying to narrow things down, because we found several topics that sounded interesting to explore further. But we kept coming back to the same thought:<br />
<br />
Anyone who's checking this site during the Feast of Tabernacles is probably not having the "best Feast ever." What you need is encouragement, not an argument.<br />
<br />
We know that the Feast can be a challenging time for those who are questioning within the Church of God movement. We've been there. It feels like everyone around you is having the time of their lives. They are rejoicing amidst the sight-seeing adventures, snorkeling and winery tours. Meanwhile, the same canned, reheated sermons and polite lunchtime fellowship are leaving you feeling spiritually <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/tabernacles-bittersweet-feast-of-booths.html">empty</a>.<br />
<br />
Maybe you're excited to see some old familiar faces - faces of acquaintances you haven't seen since the last <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/01/social-media-pays-cogwa-calculated.html">split</a>. Maybe they're back! Or maybe your Feast site was closer to home, or in a dream destination they've always wanted to visit. A principled choice, indeed, for folks who left a handful of years ago, saying they wondered if those who lead your organization had ever really been "called."<br />
<br />
Or maybe the division within the COGs is hitting you in a different way this year. Your site is smaller than ever before, with <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-pleas-for-cog-unity-will-always-fail.html">friends </a>you're missing noticeably absent. Maybe you're making plans to meet them for lunch when your respective services on the opposite sides of town get out. Or maybe you're praying not to run into them at all, as the friendship dissolved, tragically and painfully, during the last split.<br />
<br />
How can this be in God's <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">one true church</a>? Celebrating God's <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2017/10/do-holy-days-reveal-gods-plan-for.html">true festivals</a>? In His chosen place? There must be something wrong with you.<br />
<br />
Oh yes. Something is wrong. But it's not with <i>you</i>.<br />
<br />
We're so, so sorry that you're feeling this way. Truly. We've been there, and it's no fun.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NgpXxstMlF4/XaMKuHxyJHI/AAAAAAAAAXs/r6IB6-XN4QUBHWOvMlOWlf7ukEvt8Q5MACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/god%2Bcalling.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="400" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NgpXxstMlF4/XaMKuHxyJHI/AAAAAAAAAXs/r6IB6-XN4QUBHWOvMlOWlf7ukEvt8Q5MACLcBGAsYHQ/s320/god%2Bcalling.jpg" width="320" /></a>But we're glad these questions are coming up. God often uses pain to wake us up and reach us. It's hard to get our attention when we're comfortable and content.<br />
<br />
Trust Him. Listen and follow Him. His sheep hear His voice. And know that we are earnestly praying for you at this time. And that we're here for you, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/02/on-personal-note-why-we-do-what-we-do.html">because of you</a>. And that things will get better.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
_____________________________________________________________________<br />
<br />
But... for those who came here for some comic relief, or miss the usual level of snark ABD delivers, we're throwing in our top 5 Feast of Tabernacles ideas as a bonus:<br />
<ul>
<li>Beachfront resort towns seem like a counter-intuitive spot for God to place His name annually during the Atlantic hurricane season. Thanks to the late feast this year, most sites seem to have dodged the bullet – unless you had reservations in the Bahamas. (All joking aside, we pray for those in the Bahamas. If you have excess second tithe, consider donating it <a href="https://www.gbdisasterrelief.org/donations/donate-fund/">here </a>to the disaster fund administered by the Grand Bahama Port Authority). But if the National Weather Service can predict paths with somewhat reliable accuracy several days out, surely the Lord can do even better. Maybe the Feast was never intended to be celebrated in the New World – or even after the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/walk-in-light_20.html">fall of the Temple</a>. </li>
<li>Speaking of Jerusalem – if you're not keeping the Feast there, you may be <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/09/you-should-keep-feast-of-tabernacles.html">doing it wrong</a>. Those who support celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles based on the claim that nothing from the Sinai Covenant has passed except the sacrifices need to explain why it's ok to celebrate the festival in locations like Panama City Beach. In a hotel, rather than a palm frond sukkot. (Wait, I know! Because they're not up to hurricane construction codes: see also previous point).</li>
<li>If you subscribe to the view that the holy days were established at creation, then there's precedent for celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles elsewhere. However, we'd like to see hard evidence that He has placed His name somewhere besides Jerusalem, after the fall of the temple. Aside from Panama City Beach, that is, where as many as 11 Church of God groups keep the Feast in separate venues. After all, things did not go well for Israel after Jeroboam changed the date and location of the festival. (I am starting to notice a pattern. See both points 1 and 2). </li>
<li>That Paul's dogged determination to <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/06/paul-and-pentecost.html">get to Jerusalem for ONE Pentecost celebration </a>is not a mandate for the entire gentile world to celebrate the Hebrew festivals. Scripture doesn't clarify whether Paul went primarily to celebrate the festival or to publicly exonerate claims against him through fulfilling a Nazirite-like vow. What it does make clear, though, is that he spent two uninterrupted years at the School of Tyrannus in Ephesus, more than a thousand miles from Jerusalem. And that when he finally did make his pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he didn't try to convince the Ephesian brethren they were obligated to join him. </li>
<li>That, despite recent claims from the United Church of God, you do not need to celebrate the Hebrew festivals <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/09/faith-and-parachutes-part-1.html">to enter the Kingdom of God</a>. One recent Beyond Today article we find particularly annoying tries to link the Hebrews 10:25 admonition to assemble with meeting to celebrate the holy days. The author completely inserts this idea into the text, which primarily deals with not losing the faith and assembling to encourage and serve one another. Not to mention that the concept is in complete contradistinction to Acts 16: 30-34. Paul and Silas had the perfect chance to instruct the jailer – likely a Philippian gentile – on UCG's finer points of salvation. Alas, they did not. </li>
</ul>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-56938445313423081172019-08-22T15:22:00.002-04:002024-01-21T16:07:04.564-05:00Rock Valley & Oak Stone Christian churches: Trendier, Gentler COGs<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ORrV6mbtiTE/XT-0mysBemI/AAAAAAAAAWk/SLmeodQjVgweqRmg3Nd80sZZk9trIQjBwCLcBGAs/s1600/random%2Bnumbers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ORrV6mbtiTE/XT-0mysBemI/AAAAAAAAAWk/SLmeodQjVgweqRmg3Nd80sZZk9trIQjBwCLcBGAs/s400/random%2Bnumbers.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
It's become popular in recent years for churches and ministries to incorporate numbers into their name or logo. Ken Ham's <i>Answers in Genesis</i> organization stamps a 1:1 shorthand trademark on its materials. A group of Michigan churches called 2|42 embraces the practices listed in Acts 2:42-47 as a means of making disciples. Hebrew Roots ministry 119 alludes to the Psalm 119 reference to David being a man after God's own heart.<br />
<br />
Turns out that even Armstrongism isn't immune from this trend.<br />
<br />
We at As Bereans Did recently learned about the existence of 14:12 churches. What are 14:12 churches? As of now, there appear to be two – Rock Valley Christian Church in Murrieta, California, and Oak Stone Christian Church in Dallas, Texas. While Rock Valley has been around for many years, Oak Stone is less than a year old, and was planted by Rock Valley's pastor, David Liesenfelt. These churches rally around Revelation 14:12 because its members “keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus,” according to Liesenfelt.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r6iAjgyV_r4/XT-zltksi8I/AAAAAAAAAWc/q3URgARosTko4m7gzm7Kp60eKuLbWMr1ACEwYBhgL/s1600/church%2Bstage%2B%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="403" data-original-width="640" height="201" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r6iAjgyV_r4/XT-zltksi8I/AAAAAAAAAWc/q3URgARosTko4m7gzm7Kp60eKuLbWMr1ACEwYBhgL/s320/church%2Bstage%2B%25282%2529.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Stereotypical Pinterest church sanctuary photo</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But Rock Valley and Oak Stone don't just have a trendy tagline. They have the telltale matching pallet wood backdrops and string light accents to back it up. Drums and electric guitars accompany their contemporary Christian worship services. Their web sites are peppered with Christian-ese terms like “non-denominational” and “church plant.” To the unsuspecting passer-by, they look like any other community church.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UJtDDF3YiFA/XV7nWAMi9qI/AAAAAAAAAXA/L3a6iFi8UXcuI7MFpB3Q63v8i0Pznc4RwCEwYBhgL/s1600/rock%2Bvalley%2Bphoto.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UJtDDF3YiFA/XV7nWAMi9qI/AAAAAAAAAXA/L3a6iFi8UXcuI7MFpB3Q63v8i0Pznc4RwCEwYBhgL/s320/rock%2Bvalley%2Bphoto.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Rock Valley sanctuary, courtesy of YouTube</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
And therein lies our problem.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>COG-Lite</b></h3>
We have mixed feelings about criticizing these 14:12 churches. They appear more relaxed than any Church of God we've ever seen. We see jeans in the audience, and even hands lifted in worship. They've ditched <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/happy-thanksgiving-from-my-gentile.html">British Israelism</a> and a few other points of Armstrongist nonsense. To be honest, if our extended families continue to attend the COGs, this seems like the kind of place we hope they end up.<br />
<br />
But here's the thing. Rock Valley and Oak Stone are more into evangelism than their COG predecessors. They, unlike many COGs, appear to get visitors who have no connection to Armstrongism. And also unlike other COGs, which scare people away with their hotel meeting spaces and three-piece suits, their atmosphere seems culturally congruent. Visitors have no reason to suspect they are witnessing anything other than a small, yet vibrant, Christian church plant.<br />
<br />
As xHWA so aptly explained, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2019/07/you-were-right-to-join.html">we don't blame </a>those who were drawn into the COGs early on. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. It's hard to criticize those who wanted to please God and showed the courage to turn away from long-held mainstream traditions, regardless of the personal cost. And we sympathize with those raised in the tradition who feel pressure to stay, despite their questions. But in 2019, with decades of documentation, resources and good old Google available, it's hard to understand making the decision to join.<br />
<br />
Unless you don't know what you're joining. Unless you're not getting the full story.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>The Rest of the Story</b></h3>
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rG_O6--KluY/XT-p0uXb3kI/AAAAAAAAAVw/ga4oF2vvC6s7GwVA3qWfRNNe7QNoOsLzQCLcBGAs/s1600/review.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1532" data-original-width="1044" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rG_O6--KluY/XT-p0uXb3kI/AAAAAAAAAVw/ga4oF2vvC6s7GwVA3qWfRNNe7QNoOsLzQCLcBGAs/s200/review.jpg" width="136" /></a>This is our impression, as well as the impression of one Google reviewer, who really enjoyed the church, but eventually left because he was uncomfortable with the ambiguity of Rock Valley's Statement of Beliefs, as well as its <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/04/professing-polytheism.html">anti-Trinitarian</a> stance.<br />
<br />
“Transparency from the church leadership, a clearly defined statement of beliefs and a truly Biblical theological position from a church group is a high importance to me.”<br />
<br />
(We won't make a big deal about the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/08/primer-to-trinity-doctrine.html">Trinity </a>today, although you're more than welcome to check out our <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/05/rainbows-and-earthworms-or-making-sense.html">musings</a> on the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesus-death-under-trinitarianism.html">topic</a>.)<br />
<br />
The vagueness of Rock Valley's statement of beliefs is a red flag. But it was an even bigger red flag when Liesenfelt wasn't transparent with ABD about his theological background. After reading about his churches, I emailed Liesenfelt with several questions, including asking from which seminary he received his certification.<br />
<br />
<br />
“I never attended seminary,” he responded. “My authority comes from Jesus Christ.”<br />
<br />
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ULKWYqydokM/XT-r0Yiu_oI/AAAAAAAAAV8/-yRAYshIQ7keEKGsXZBW5uM1_y9YJqXGQCEwYBhgL/s1600/liesenfelt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="816" data-original-width="1600" height="161" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ULKWYqydokM/XT-r0Yiu_oI/AAAAAAAAAV8/-yRAYshIQ7keEKGsXZBW5uM1_y9YJqXGQCEwYBhgL/s320/liesenfelt.jpg" width="320" /></a>We believe Liesenfelt is telling the truth when he says he didn't attend seminary. However, Liesenfelt also runs abudantliving.org, a web site featuring his sermons, radio shows and other material he produces. On abundantliving.org, Liesenfelt states that he graduated from college in 1990 with a degree in Theology. We later asked Liesenfelt why he did not disclose this fact when responding to our seminary question, since we were clearly seeking details about his theological training. As of the time this piece was posted, he has not responded to the question. It has been almost a month since we posed this question to him.<br />
<br />
We are reasonably certain we know the source of <i>some of </i>Liesenfelt's theological training. According to The Worldwide News' June 5, 1989 edition, Liesenfelt received his Associate of Arts Degree from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_College">Ambassador College</a> at Big Sandy, Texas - an unaccredited institution founded by <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">Herbert W Armstrong</a>. Armstrong founded and ran the Worldwide Church of God, which is discussed in Walter Martin's book, <u>The Kingdom of the Cults,</u> until his death in 1986. Since then, WCG has splintered into hundreds of smaller organizations that retain different permutations of Armstrong's teachings.<br />
<br />
Does attending <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/06/ambassador-fine-arts-building-demolished.html">Ambassador College</a> disqualify Liesenfelt from the role of pastor? Of course not. Does membership in a questionable religious institution disqualify him pastoring, teaching or other theological commentary? Again, I obviously don't think so, since everyone at ABD is in the same boat. But if you call yourself a pastor, and you're asked about your religious training, and have religious training from a specific institution, hiding it is concerning. Admit it. Affirm what you were taught, if you still believe it. If not, state where you have turned or departed. Especially if you are a Bible teacher, when the Bible exhorts us to tell the truth and avoid deceptive words and behavior. Liesenfelt's answer feels like more than an oversight to us. Further, it seems congruent with the reviewer's assessment of Rock Valley leadership.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Filling in the gaps</b></h3>
<br />
We're left to Liesenfelt's own answers and posted sermons to try to determine how much <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrongs-doctrines-and-fruit.html">Ambassador College material</a> is left in his teachings. He doesn't promote British Israelism - the theory that the United States and Western European peoples are direct physical descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel - which we applaud.<br />
<br />
The Old Covenant law, including a seventh-day Sabbath and the Holy Days (as interpreted by those who founded Ambassador College), is still emphasized. The sites include many topics that are borderline Evangelical, we still see some key Ambassador College/COG buzzwords, like "Law of Liberty," "Faith Without Works," "Lean Not On Your Own Understanding," "He Who Endures To The End Shall Be Saved," and more.<br />
<br />
You might ask, those are just Bible verses, what's the harm? Anyone who has spent any time in a COG knows these old, familiar verses. You've heard them over and over and over again. These ones aren't chosen at random - they know it and we know it.<br />
<br />
In one sermon, titled "The Whole Gospel in one Bible Chapter," Liesenfelt asks his audience which one chapter of the Bible they would use to preach the gospel to an unbeliever. Audience members had many suggestions, including Romans 8, Hebrews 10 and John 3. Instead, Leisenfelt explained that Leviticus 23 was the best source for explaining God's "plan of salvation."<br />
<br />
We agree, in a roundabout way, that Leviticus 23 does point to God's plan. And that <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2017/10/do-holy-days-reveal-gods-plan-for.html">plan </a>was the coming of Jesus Christ, the One whom the holy days <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/09/shadows-of-fall-holy-days_28.html">foreshadowed</a>, and our salvation by grace through faith in Him. The holy days do not lay out a jigsaw puzzle we must piece together in order to attain salvation. They demonstrated the insufficiency of Israel, the law and anything else besides the Messiah to save, and pointed Israel to Him as their only hope. And as Paul explained in 2 Corinthians 3:12, Israel didn't see it.<br />
<br />
And Liesenfelt doesn't seem to see it, either. His message on the Leviticus 23 "gospel" dwells on the fact that those in "the world" see the Holy Days through a veil, which is lifted when they turn to God. Those who read scripture in context will note that 2 Corinthians 3:13 specifically tells us this passage refers to Israel - specifically when Israel focuses on the Sinai Covenant. Sadly, the COGs unknowingly fall into the same trap.<br />
<br />
<br />
Rock Valley's typical Christmas sermon sounds like a slightly better-marketed version of the moldly leftovers the COGs serve up each December. We note Pastor Liesenfelt quoted <u>The Golden Bough</u>, a tome that rejects the story of Jesus Christ as nothing more than a re-iteration of other ancient Mesopotamian religious myths. In short, if you put stock in <u>The Golden Bough</u>, you have no business professing faith in Christ. Incidentally, most of the other sources Liesenfelt cited were ones ABD has <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/12/christmas-faq.html">researched </a>and <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-quotes-before-christmas.html">addressed</a>. In his message, Liesenfelt encouraged his audience to think critically about what they had been taught and why they do what they do. He also claimed that he had “never seen a source that disagreed” with his assessments. Well, now you have.<br />
<br />
It's annoying to see a hip, trendy church try to spin WCG's 1967 anti-Christmas material, or really, Alexander <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/search?q=%22hislop%22&updated-max=2011-01-16T21:04:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=1&by-date=false">Hislop's </a>1800's anti-Catholic propaganda, as cutting-edge truth. But it's just Christmas, not a matter of life and death. We bring this up simply as anecdotal evidence of how far Rock Valley Christian Church and Oak Stone <i>have </i>or <i>haven't </i>fallen from the Ambassador College/WCG Tree. We'll drop it and get back to actual matters of <i>life </i>and <i>death</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>Seek and ye shall find?</b></h3>
<br />
We find some of Rock Valley's doctrinal statements – and by extension Oak Stone's – to be vague.<br />
<br />
To be fair, Rock Valley's statement of beliefs includes a handful of long statements that sound relatively convincing. But they preface it with the statement that “any listing of specific beliefs will fall utterly short in that we accept the teaching of the Bible as our primary source of belief.”<br />
<br />
We honestly do appreciate churches that have the courage to say “we don't know,” because we recognize there are places where scripture is murky. But that's not seems to be going on here. Rock Valley's statement of beliefs seems intentionally vague to us in some key areas – specifically, the area of salvation. We initially asked Liesenfelt for clarification on his teachings in this area – specifically whether keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days are required for salvation. We got this answer:<br />
<br />
“Jesus is the only true judge, so the question you are asking should only be answered by the One Who alone has the authority to give life (salvation) to whom He wills.”<br />
<br />
True. But a pastor's role is to help shepherd and guide the flock on eternal, spiritual matters. There is no greater spiritual matter than your salvation. We are all to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. But a pastor's key job is to lead and feed the sheep. If your pastor – regardless of the denomination – can't or won't tell you what he believes you need to do to avoid damnation, we suggest that you walk away.<br />
<br />
We also initially asked Liesenfelt whether he taught that salvation is a one-time event or an ongoing process that can be. He replied that is both, and gave the following explanation:<br />
<br />
“The Bible declares that a person is saved when they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, the person who continues to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, and the person who endures to the end, and does not reject the salvation offered, shall be saved.”<br />
<br />
This sounds like the common Armstrongist teaching of <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/just-what-do-you-mean-justified.html">ongoing justification</a>, and so we asked for more clarification whether this was what he taught. We also asked what he believed we must to do maintain our state of justification before God – since Liesenfelt stated that we are saved upon professing faith – and what exactly we must persist in until the end. To date – nearly a month after our inquiry - he has not responded.<br />
<br />
We understand that asking what one needs to do to lose his salvation is not a great question. It's not an indicator of an obedient, Christian heart that's eager to please God, as Liesenfelt stated on one of his radio programs about Law and Grace. Christians should be focused on obeying God and following the prompting of the Holy Spirit, not trying to tow the line. Searching for the line is not exactly in keeping with the focus and intent of Christianity.<br />
<br />
But here's the problem. If you teach any form of <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/06/who-requires-what-for-salvation.html">ongoing justification</a>, you need to know where that line is. If you are saved by grace (as taught at Rock Valley) but have the power to stray or reject the offer of salvation (as Liesenfelt seemed to indicate), you better know where that line is. In short, if salvation is a pass-fail proposition, then you better make sure you pass. And you can't pass if you don't have a clearly defined set of <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">rules</a>.<br />
<br />
In his Law and Grace radio programs, Liesenfelt explains that Christians are saved by grace, but that the Bible indicates Christians have an obligation to obey "the law" after they are saved. While he focuses significantly on the Ten Commandments, Liesenfelt repeatedly brings up obedience to the Law.<br />
<br />
But which part of the law? Just the 10 Commandments? Presumably not, because Rock Valley appears to observe the Leviticus 23 Holy Days. Do members of Oak Stone Christian church believe they are obligated to keep the <i>whole </i>law? The parts about mixed fabrics? Seclusion and purification days after childbirth? Unless my eyes deceive me, the pictures on Rock Valley's web site indicate <i>neither </i>pastor is following the whole law - specifically, the portions pertaining to beards for men.<br />
<br />
Conundrums like this are why we believe Jesus warned us not to <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-feast-celebrating-coming-kingdom-of.html">mix wineskins</a>. Christians are not party to the to the Sinai Covenant. That covenant ended with the death of its Jesus Christ, its testator (Hebrews 9:16). The covenant is obsolete and vanished (Hebrews 8:13). Had it not, God would not have been free to enter the New Covenant.<br />
<br />
Under the New Covenant, Christians have responsibilities for <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-wake-up-call-to-rod-meredith.html">moral living</a> and <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/03/gardening-with-god-or-growing-spiritual.html">Christian growth</a> into the image and stature of Christ under the New Covenant. Many Christians will debate, until they're blue in the face, whether Christians are once-saved-always-saved, or whether it's possible to throw away one's salvation. You can find passages in the Bible that support both. What you can't find, though, are passages that reinforce what many COGs teach: that you waver back and forth between saved and unsaved, for lack of a better phrase, whenever you break the select tenets of Law your splinter group chooses.<br />
<br />
Is that was Oak Stone and Rock Valley teach? We don't know, because Liesenfelt won't answer. We suspect, however, that he, like others with an Armstrongist background, are<br />
c<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/confusing-covenants.html">onfusing the covenants</a>. Was he trying to be evasive, or is the problem with the doctrine? Ongoing justification <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/08/get-me-off-this-plane.html">sounds good </a>on the surface, but doesn't make sense when you actually <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/09/faith-and-parachutes-part-1.html">tease it out</a>. We're guessing the problem is a matter of cognitive dissonance based in faulty doctrine, but Liesenfelt's not-so-straightforward answers to other questions don't exactly give us confidence.<br />
<br />
<h3>
<b>The bottom line</b></h3>
So why are we taking the time to post this? Is it because we want to smear Rock Valley Christian Church, Oak Stone Christian Church, and their pastor?<br />
<br />
Definitely not. We admire these “14:12” churches for stepping away from teachings like British Israelism, knowing the potential cost. We liked a lot of we heard in Liesenfelt's messages on the critical doctrine of <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">imputed righteousness</a> . As we stated earlier, if our loved ones remain in the COGs, we hope they'll end up somewhere like this. Dare we recommend that established COG members dissatisfied with their current fellowship check them out?<br />
<br />
At the same time, if you Google these churches, you won't find a lot of information. We think that potential members with no COG background need to have the facts before joining them. We're not confident that's happening. We think potential members should know they are visiting a non-Trinitarian sect, that embraces soul sleep, an alternative interpretation on salvation, and has its roots in Herbert Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God. If no one else is going to let them know, we will.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<b>Acts 17:11</b><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-21449715224096392992019-07-20T09:42:00.006-04:002024-02-08T21:23:32.094-05:00You Were Right To Join<div style="text-align: left;">
Hello, dear reader. It's been a few minutes since I last posted. Truth is, I simply don't have the time anymore like I used to. Sometimes you just have to make time.<br />
<br />
Today I want to give you two things - one that I almost never do, and one that I almost always do. First the one I almost never do...<br />
<br />
<b>YOU WERE RIGHT!</b><br />
<br />
You were right to join your Church of God group.<br />
You heard me. You were right to join Armstrongism.<br />
<br />
Have I lost my mind? No. (I don't think so anyway.) Hear me out. Let's take a closer look here. What was the situation? You were faced with a huge decision - given the information that you had, your choice was either deny what you were convinced was true -or- you leave the world behind and join a Church of God. You saw something - maybe the 4th Commandment - and you were challenged with what to do with it. You chose to go with what you had been convinced was true with the information you had. How can that be a bad thing?<br />
<br />
It's no small decision, either. You sacrificed, you faced scorn, you swam upstream, you basically had to isolate yourself from society. And you did it all because you have respect for truth and faith in God. Personally, I can't fault that. In fact, I think that anyone who does find fault in that isn't thinking clearly about the human condition. We all have to do the best we can with what we have. We have finite knowledge and finite resources. What can be expected!?<br />
<br />
So I say again, you were right to join Armstrongism. Bear in mind that nothing I write in this article will diminish this.<br />
<br />
That's what I almost never do; I almost never say people were right for joining a COG. Now for what I almost always do...<br />
<br />
<b>A BIG BUT</b><br />
<br />
I always seem to have a "but!" to throw into the mix. It's kinda my thing. And my "but" is - you have access to more information now. And the information you now have access to should not be dismissed offhand but considered in every bit as much gravity and importance as the information that convinced you to join, or remain in, a COG group. You didn't dismiss the COGs; don't just dismiss us, please.<br />
<br />
<b>DECISIONS, DECISIONS</b><br />
<br />
Life tends to go in large circles and by being here at ABD you have arrived back once again at that very same decision point. My question is - how would your original decision have been changed if you had access to more information?<br />
<br />
Back when you made your decision to join or remain in a COG, you had already in your possession a certain set of information. You had on one hand what you brought with you and already accepted as true up to that time, and you had in the other hand what you were being given by the COGs. Then you made the best decision you could at the time. No one can fault you! You know what you know and that's all you know. Ya know? Well, now you have at your fingertips all of the articles and experiences of the writers and contributors here at ABD.<br />
<br />
We all faced and made the same decision you made. We were all once in a COG (either born into it or joined later). But then we were presented with more information that we simply didn't have access to previously. We each found ourselves at that same decision point once again, but this time with better information. We share that information freely with you.<br />
<br />
Today, you have in one hand the things the COGs have convinced you is
true, and in the other the articles in this blog which give you the rest
of the story that the COGs left out. <br />
<br />
<b>GOING FORWARD</b><br />
<br />
I am not exaggerating when I say there are very important things you need to know that will completely alter the equation. There are things that were purposefully hidden from us by the COGs. Things they don't want us to know. What should one do with such information? Bury the head in the sand? Dismiss it outright? Refuse to listen?<br />
<br />
We ask, what will you do?<br />
<br />
So, you were right to make the decision you did. Nothing said here diminishes this in the least. You did the best you could at the time. So did we! But we offer you more information than what you had then. Are you willing to at least hear us out? Are you willing to <u><i>prove all things</i></u> and see if what we are saying is true? What if it is?<br />
<br />
If no information in the world could possibly convince you to reconsider, then go in peace. We harbor no ill will here. But, we suspect you wouldn't be here in the first place if that were so.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<b>Acts 17:11</b><br />
************</div>
xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-22095762589228324332019-04-17T22:03:00.003-04:002024-01-21T16:52:25.602-05:00Boost Your Spiritual Credit Rating this Passover!<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BlLZHNvJWsk/XLc5BJaPRsI/AAAAAAAAATw/xQcbm3ynqmk8TEA7KL0hX4Qz_RMWJ7j5wCLcBGAs/s1600/credit%2Bscore%2Bpic.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="565" data-original-width="849" height="212" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BlLZHNvJWsk/XLc5BJaPRsI/AAAAAAAAATw/xQcbm3ynqmk8TEA7KL0hX4Qz_RMWJ7j5wCLcBGAs/s320/credit%2Bscore%2Bpic.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
It's almost time for the Passover. Soooo... what's your spiritual credit score? Asking for a friend.<br />
<br />
Over the years, we at As Bereans Did have poked fun at the transactional metaphors that the Churches of God use to quantify spiritual growth that “leads” to salvation. I have a few favorites - “<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">sticker chart</a>” and “<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/08/get-me-off-this-plane.html">spiritual batting average</a>,” to name a couple.<br />
<br />
But Edward L. Winkfield, managing editor of Pack's Real Truth magazine, took it to a whole new level in his recent pre-Passover article titled “<a href="https://rcg.org/pillar/2002pp-ryscs.html">Raise your Spiritual Credit Score</a>.”<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“This analogy is not farfetched when you consider that God openly says we must seek to be 'approved' of Him. (2 Tim. 2:15) - put to test by trial to produce truth and genuineness," according to Winkfield. </blockquote>
<br />
Before I get started today, I want to make a few things clear. Today, I'm not criticizing the COGs' timing for taking the Passover. I think the biblical instructions regarding frequency are a little less restrictive, but an annual observance definitely falls under the umbrella of “as often as,” so that's good enough for today.<br />
<br />
I'm also not going to take issue with self-examination. While I think the COGs skew the idea, there's no denying that Christians should regularly analyze their thoughts, habits and behavior – particularly in conjunction with taking the bread and the wine.<br />
<br />
But if I'm taking these concessions, then I expect you to meet me halfway. Because remember, I once was one of you. I know that, right now, many of you are thinking, I'm not in Dave Pack's group, I would never follow that man!<br />
<br />
Stop.<br />
<br />
I'm asking you to set your biases aside and be objective, since it's the season for self-examination. Remember that both Pack and the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">leaders of your group</a> were influenced by and are, in many ways, imitate the same man. Remember that your <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrongs-doctrines-and-fruit.html">traditions and ideas</a> all came from the same place. Be honest about whether you see the same attitudes and motivations in your group's view of Passover.<br />
<br />
What idea? The idea that we need to raise our <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">approval rating</a> with God in order to <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/09/faith-and-parachutes-part-1.html">secure </a>our salvation, at Passover and really, throughout our lives. Because RCG, and to an extent, all the COGs, twist the scriptures about pleasing God from the biblical picture of a beloved, grateful child of God trying to please a loving Father to a servant grasping to hold onto approval and perhaps, possibly, even gain a harsh taskmaster's approval.<br />
<br />
But wait, Martha, isn't that exactly what the parable of the talents teaches us?<br />
<br />
It's certainly the message that Winkfield gets from the parable. In his article, he explains that God uses similar principles of reward and punishment to “motivate and inspire” Christians.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Clearly 'damnation' is not God's will for us,” Winkfield writes. “By obediently following His command to examine ourselves each spring, we can raise our spiritual 'credit score' as we seek God's divine approval.”</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ECZ_JADbeC4/XLfW5jdJ8_I/AAAAAAAAAUI/Oa_rYDojvr8GwmZZnp6wZfixyz1BXzdLQCEwYBhgL/s1600/money%2Bin%2Bhole.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="241" data-original-width="360" height="214" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ECZ_JADbeC4/XLfW5jdJ8_I/AAAAAAAAAUI/Oa_rYDojvr8GwmZZnp6wZfixyz1BXzdLQCEwYBhgL/s320/money%2Bin%2Bhole.jpg" width="320" /></a>Interestingly, many get a slightly different message from the Parable of the Talents, the implications of which are easily missed by Armstrongists who don't believe in <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/05/just-what-do-they-mean-born-again.html">regeneration</a>. <br />
<br />
The parable doesn't give any indication that the two servants who were praised shared the third servant's negative impression of their master. The Expositor's Bible Commentary notes that slaves in the ancient world – apparently, such as these – were often entrusted with significant authority and responsibility. It would seem that the first two servants may have recognized and appreciated the investment their master made in them. The third, however, did not.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“What this servant overlooks is his responsibility to his master and his obligation to discharge his assigned duties,” according to Expositor's. “His failure betrays his lack of love for his master, which he masks by blaming his master and excusing himself.”</blockquote>
<br />
Unlike the other two, the third servant saw his master as grasping, controlling, and harsh. He lacked faith in and love for his master. Though he called him Lord, his heart was far from Him – like someone who was unregenerate and lacked the Holy Spirit, as evidenced by his attitude and<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/03/gardening-with-god-or-growing-spiritual.html"> lack of fruit</a>. What frightens me is, the picture of the Master that the wicked servant paints is not entirely dissimilar from Winkfield's. I pray it's simply a coincidence. <br />
<br />
Just as the Master stated to the wicked servant, Winkfield reminds us that those who lend expect to get their money back, plus interest, within a certain time period.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"God similiarly seeks a return on His investment in us, which He considers our 'reasonable service'," Winkfield says. </blockquote>
<br />
Here, Winkfield references Romans 12:1, in which Paul “beseeches,” begs, encourages or exhorts, us to present ourselves as living sacrifices to God, ones that He would find holy and acceptable. Why? Many translations place the word “therefore" as the first word of Romans 12:1, indicating the "why" - the reason we should choose to serve God as a living sacrifice - are all the reasons Paul has discussed up to this point in Romans, including the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>While we were sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)</li>
<li>Eternal life is a free gift from God (Romans 6:23) </li>
<li>Only God can deliver us from our “body of death" (Romans 7:24-25)</li>
</ul>
<br />
You know, just to name a few.<br />
<br />
If Paul is cautioning us to remember that God is awaiting our annual report and ROI, well, I just don't see it. Rather, it seems to me that he is reminding his readers of what God has accomplished by dying for us, and encouraging us to live for Him.<br />
<br />
But no. Winkfield maintains that, through this "reasonable service," we could actually be “counted worthy” to enter God's Kingdom based on the judgment of our lives.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“It is through the righteous judgment of God, that we may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God (2 Thessalonians 1:5). This reveals that the only way into the Kingdom is through a judgment. Yet God is not the judge exclusively. He gives us ample opportunity to judge ourselves.”</blockquote>
<br />
Ironically, 2 Thessalonians 1:5 does commend the brethren at Thessalonica for being judged righteously, and counted worthy of the Kingdom. On what basis are they found worthy? Well, the preceding verses praise the Thessalonians for their growing faith, for the love they showed for one another, and for their patience and faith in the face of persecution.<br />
<br />
It is on the basis of faith that God declares us worthy to enter His Kingdom. It was the same for Abraham (Genesis 15:6), as it was for the Thessalonian brethren as it is for us:<br />
<br />
<i>And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.</i><br />
<i> - Genesis 15:6</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hA95r6wwfvY/XLfYTB1DeYI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/1207aMp0EbIWsxfiTcmENYoFiAa7QvYIgCLcBGAs/s1600/abraham%2Bstars.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="323" data-original-width="500" height="256" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hA95r6wwfvY/XLfYTB1DeYI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/1207aMp0EbIWsxfiTcmENYoFiAa7QvYIgCLcBGAs/s400/abraham%2Bstars.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Not only was Abraham's faith <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/02/pinky-promises-or-faith-and-parachutes_19.html">credited </a>as righteousness, it happened before he was circumcised, before he attempted to offer Isaac, before anything mentioned in the book of James. But somehow, Winkfield misses this point, giving us five primary factors that God uses to calculate our score.<i> (Spoiler alert: they weren't the same factors used to judge Abraham).</i> His article is somewhat vague, mixing physical terms like our “current debt” of forgiveness and repentance, our “credit history” of appropriate spiritual growth level, and developing “new credit” with God created by overcoming sins and weaknesses.<br />
<br />
However, in an <a href="https://rcg.org/pillar/1602pp-serga.html">article </a>linked at the end of Winkfield's, RCG Pastor General David Pack himself reveals more specific criteria, although, again, we receive no quantifiable measure. According to Pack, these criteria include keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days, studying the Bible, watching prophecy be fulfilled, admirable personal conduct, and being fervent for “the work.”<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“There is, in fact, revealed in God's Word, a certain spiritual 'seal of approval' that every Christian MUST obtain. Specific actions in a person's conduct confer this approval upon him, and, because God is not a respecter of persons, there are no exceptions to what He expects,” Pack writes. “Without these actions, a Christian, no matter how sincere, has no hope for salvation.”</blockquote>
<br />
Huh. Okay. I am having a hard time finding these specs in the verse where Jesus tells us what the work He expects of us:<br />
<br />
<i>"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”</i><br />
<i> - John 6:27-29</i><br />
<br />
Pack's advice also seems to contradict Ephesians 2:8-9:<br />
<br />
<i>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works so that no one can boast.</i><br />
<br />
Winkfield, however, seems determined that the answer comes from <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/08/get-me-off-this-plane.html">working harder </a>in the coming year:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We can come to grips with our strengths and weaknesses and come up with a creative plan to do better. From there, we can go out and execute our plan with the time we have left,” he advises. “If successful, we can eventually be commended.”</blockquote>
<br />
Oh yeah. And do it with God's help. Kinda.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Upon repentance, God frees us completely from the sins that bring the burdens of spiritual debt. This is vastly superior to trying to dig out of debt on your own. And, as God does His part to fix any 'credit' problem you may have, you must do your part to help build and keep it up.”</blockquote>
<br />
Actually, Romans 4 does talk about the work that we do to build and keep up our spiritual credit score. And not in a good way.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S865RudUP5s/XLfZFq18iYI/AAAAAAAAAUg/PGsi2JZjGbgk2sFJ1sz-5isSKTgh1ujvwCLcBGAs/s1600/paycheck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="607" data-original-width="760" height="255" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-S865RudUP5s/XLfZFq18iYI/AAAAAAAAAUg/PGsi2JZjGbgk2sFJ1sz-5isSKTgh1ujvwCLcBGAs/s320/paycheck.jpg" width="320" /></a><i>What then, shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about – but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.</i><br />
<i> - Romans 4:1-5</i><br />
<br />
Now, I know what you're thinking. Remember, I once was you. Martha, everyone knows Dave Pack's extreme. My group's isn't like RCG.<br />
<br />
Might I remind you that Dave Pack came from the same place as the man in your pulpit? That virtually all the leaders in the COGs are vying to carry the mantle of the true church, rising from the Worldwide Church of God's ashes? That RCG's theology is just a more extreme continuum along the path of the theology Herbert W Armstrong developed? In fact, Pack's teachings really just flesh out many of HWA's teachings to their fullest extent, while others whitewash the full implications through convenient cognitive dissonance.<br />
<br />
If, at Passover, you have elders remarking that "you're the cleanest you'll ever be," or that they don't want to do anything that will tarnish their newly-clean record, your church is simply at a different point along the same road.<br />
<br />
Commemorating Christ's sacrifice with bread and wine is a command, but it's not magic. Doing it irreverently, without introspection is foolish, disrespectful and potentially dangerous, but there's no magic formula or outline defining "proper examination." Trying to quantify, and worse yet, to qualify, for approval and entrance into the Kingdom through our efforts and actions puts one in a dangerous position. Once we have become a new creation in Christ by the Spirit, we do not grow into his image by works of the flesh (Galatians 3:3).<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OSdRDO74lV4/XLfaD7xnm3I/AAAAAAAAAUs/EVBOxw6b7swHrxLWd9HD30POlvvSUGASQCLcBGAs/s1600/communion.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="203" data-original-width="220" height="294" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OSdRDO74lV4/XLfaD7xnm3I/AAAAAAAAAUs/EVBOxw6b7swHrxLWd9HD30POlvvSUGASQCLcBGAs/s320/communion.JPG" width="320" /></a><br />
If you are the Lord's, you have already been washed by his blood. (John 13:10). Examine yourself and "wash your feet", but if you have taken the bread and the wine, you are already unleavened (1 Corinthians 5:7).<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
So by all means, take the Passover. Eat the bread and drink the wine. Do it in remembrance of Jesus and what He did for you. Examine your heart and your mind. And when you find yourself unworthy, take heart. God already claimed you as His own when you entered the New Covenant. You already stand approved - not because of anything you have done, but because of what He did for you. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-59588541315970073372019-01-18T16:59:00.005-05:002024-01-20T11:29:04.176-05:00On a Personal Note: Why We're Here<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6JEY-rGh1m8/XEJHPz54GmI/AAAAAAAAATE/7RX_7ffENY8ZwRTt84d0TENejXVNBWjsgCEwYBhgL/s1600/writing%2Ba%2Bletter.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6JEY-rGh1m8/XEJHPz54GmI/AAAAAAAAATE/7RX_7ffENY8ZwRTt84d0TENejXVNBWjsgCEwYBhgL/s320/writing%2Ba%2Bletter.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
If you've stumbled onto As Bereans Did, chances are good that you have two questions: who are these guys, and why do they criticize the Churches of God so much?<br />
<br />
A reader from a COG splinter, who knows me both as myself and as Martha, reminded me recently that it might wise to give any newer readers a refresher on the motives behind this blog. It's a reasonable suggestion, and I'm thankful for it.<br />
<br />
So what's the point of As Bereans Did? Are we just a bunch of haters who let bitterness steal our crowns? Are we mockers out to persecute God's true church?<br />
<br />
ABD has been around for more than a decade. It's been through many hands, but the goals have always been the same:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>To challenge the doctrinal and historical fallacies promoted by <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">Herbert Armstrong</a>, the Worldwide Church of God, and the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">splinter groups</a> that remain today. </li>
<li>To reach out to and support those who are questioning or contemplating leaving these splinter groups. </li>
</ol>
<div>
But why? Do we invest our time because we're bitter, angry and will do anything we can to disparage the COGs? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Not at all. We do it because we care about you. We do it because we WERE you. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
All of ABD's writers were COG members at some time. Some came in as adults, others were raised in it. But all took a hard look at COG doctrines, found them wanting, and left, embracing mainstream Christianity in some form or another. We're relatively content. Sure, we have some regrets and some scars. But for the most part, we're living the abundant life Christ promises in Him. We're free from the weariness of the mental checklist. We're free from the fear of falling short and ending up in the Lake of Fire. We're free from the ministerial abuse, from the toxic culture, the loneliness.</div>
<br />
<i>But you're not.</i><br />
<br />
You - our grandparents, our mothers, our fathers. Our siblings, our cousins, our nieces and nephews. Our childhood friends. Those with whom we went to college. Who stood by us during painful church splits. Who've bandaged our children's skinned knees. Who've shared pieces of our lives that few other can understand.<br />
<br />
That weighs heavily on our hearts. And <i>that</i> is why we're here, and why we do what we do. Trust us, it would be a whole lot easier to grab a bag of chips and turn on Netflix.<br />
<br />
Let me make it clear:<br />
<br />
We don't care what you eat. Eat pork, don't eat pork, whatever. Trying to figure out what to serve our friends on the latest fad diet is much harder, anyway.<br />
<br />
We don't care what day you go to church. Sure, the Saturday-Sunday schedule conflict can be a challenge. But whatever. We care about you, and if we all try, we can find a way to make the relationship work.<br />
<br />
We don't even care - really - about the holy days. We do think holy day observance can be <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened.html">dangerous </a>- because of the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened_24.html">self-righteousness</a> they foster, the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/10/just-what-do-you-mean-atonement.html">bad theology</a> your church uses to support them, and mostly because we believe they <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened_28.html">distract </a>from the very One they pointed to. But hey, Paul turned out ok. Evidence is <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/06/paul-and-pentecost.html">mixed </a>on whether he continued to keep all of them or mainly used them as a gospel opportunity. But we're not here to argue about that, not today.<br />
<br />
We don't care about lobster, about the sabbath, or about Pentecost. We care about what's happening to YOU.<br />
<br />
<b><br /></b> <b>Toxic Culture</b><br />
<br />
Even you can't deny that the COGs have a toxic culture. Oh, not the COG that <i>you</i> attend, of course, just all the other ones. Rather than consider that the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrongs-doctrines-and-fruit.html">shared doctrines</a> might be causing the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/06/is-baptism-required-for-salvation.html">dysfunction</a>, you blame the guy(s) at the top of the other groups. Don't forget that they're ALL trying to imitate the same guy, and restore what he taught to some degree or another. Yes, even "so-called Christian" churches have struggles that are inevitable as long as men are in charge. But even ugly disagreements are handled with a level of discussion and grace that is unheard of in the COGs. It infuriates us to see you demeaned, slandered and cast aside, especially by lifelong "friends." We want better for you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Self-Righteousness</b><br />
<br />
We know you'll deny it, but the COGs reinforce, and sometimes directly teach, salvation by works. This can't help but reinforce a culture of self-righteousness.<b> </b>Instead of living for Christ, you live in fear of <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">screwing up</a>. Understanding grace sets the tone for true forgiveness, compassion and a basis for real Christian relationships. But if your salvation depends upon what you do, then you must do your best to get everything right - or at least some mysterious, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/08/get-me-off-this-plane.html">unquantified percentage</a>.<br />
<br />
This false doctrine fuels the underlying dynamic of criticism, fractious relationships between brethren and the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/07/why-pleas-for-cog-unity-will-always-fail.html">never-ending</a> cycle of <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/01/social-media-pays-cogwa-calculated.html">church splits</a>. These painful splits shook our worlds, ended our friendships and tore apart our families. We're done with them, and are trying to learn how to forge relationships based on grace, love, mercy and forgiveness. But it breaks our hearts to see you suffer in fractured organizations and fractured relationships, because we know the pain all too well.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Isolation</b><br />
<b><br /></b>Life in the COGs was isolated enough when we were in them, and it's not getting any better. Fellowship with mainstream Christians and apostate family members is often discouraged, and sabbath and holy day observance make it a challenge with friends and co-workers. That wasn't fun, but wasn't as bad when congregations were large and thriving. But today, splits, an aging population and lack of growth make most COGs a lonely place to be, leaving many members vulnerable to depression, alcoholism and <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/08/suicide-in-philadelphia-church-of-god.html">suicide</a>. In many ways, this can become a spiritual concern. The Bible describes Satan as a hungry lion, prowling to find whoever he can devour. Lions don't attack the pack head-on. They come from behind, looking for those who are young, sickly or weak, and try to pick them off. Isolation makes you vulnerable to the devil.<br />
<br />
The Bible makes it clear Christians function best in community, working together to fill different roles and take care of widows, orphans and members in need. Yes, we know you have scattered congregations and Facebook communities. But an elderly member can't come shovel your driveway when you're snowed in. Someone who lives two hours away can't sit with you while you wait for the paramedics to arrive. A Facebook friend across the pond can't care for your children during a family emergency. We have felt the strain of loneliness and the pain of isolation. It doesn't have to be this way. We want you to be joyful, safe and healthy, both physically and spiritually.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Salvation</b><br />
<b><br /></b> I'm going to tread lightly on this one because it's above my pay grade. I'm not going to argue about when one attains salvation, when one becomes part of God's family, or the so-called "once saved, always saved" doctrine. This is not a treatise on salvation. If we believe that salvation comes by grace, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">through faith</a> rather than works or perfect understanding, it would be foolish to claim that false doctrines will jeopardize your eternal life.<br />
<br />
At the same time, in one of our favorite <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/08/plain-truth-about-peters-hypocrisy.html">books </a>of the Bible, Paul has strong words for those who promote a gospel that combines grace and works. He tells them that they are cut off from Christ, that His sacrifice does nothing for them if they try to secure their salvation through their actions, works, observances and abstentions. A church that at best hints - and at worst promotes - observance of commandments, sabbaths and holy days as components of salvation leads its members toward sinking sand rather than the Rock. We can't judge your heart, judge your motives, judge your standing with God. We don't want to. But we'd be lying if we said we weren't concerned, and didn't pray for you regarding this matter.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>You are Worth It</b><br />
<b><br /></b> We know that we don't update this blog as often as we used to. The truth is, Jesus knew what He was talking about. Life gets amazingly, ridiculously abundant when you're trying to serve Him instead of spending your time reading ingredient wrappers or calculating sunset times. We hope that someday, we'll find time to write on occasions other than milestones, holy days, Easter and Christmas. But for now, there's lots of good information here to help you on your spiritual journey. I know, because it was one thing that helped me start mine.<br />
<br />
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Jesus told us that we'll be rewarded for the things we give up in this life. If what the COGs teach, and the doctrines and practices are what your Creator expect of you, it's all worth it. The abstentions. The observances. The rigidity. The isolation.<br />
<br />
But what if it isn't what God expects of you? Is it worth it then?<br />
<br />
We believe that isn't what He wants for you. We believe He wants more for you. And so do we.<br />
<br />
So, in case there's any further doubt, why are we here?<br />
<br />
The answer is simple:<br />
<br />
Because of you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="text-align: center;"> *******************</span><br />
<span style="text-align: center;">It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, </span><u style="text-align: center;">always prove it for yourself</u><span style="text-align: center;">, </span><u style="text-align: center;">it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u><span style="text-align: center;">. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-32976267790636013032018-12-25T12:19:00.005-05:002024-01-21T16:01:18.990-05:00Jesus: He's Kind of a Big Deal<div style="text-align: left;">
<span id="docs-internal-guid-8d23469f-7fff-25d5-0c46-f2e1596d9ee7"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Much like xHWA, writing at this time of year has become a tradition of mine. It's taken me so long, in part, because I was having a hard time deciding what to write. After all, the time we have available for blogging is getting to be so infrequent that it's hard to know whether anyone is reading As Bereans Did anymore. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Actually, that's not entirely true. I can make a decent guess about some of our web traffic. We noticed that, ahead of this Christmas season, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">COGWA </a>has added an article explaining that the American and Canadian <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/11/thanksgiving-proclamations.html">Thanksgiving </a>holidays are acceptable to the Lord, possibly in response to our tongue-in-cheek efforts to <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/11/should-christians-celebrate-thanksgiving.html">connect them to paganism</a>. Apparently COGWA has decided that, though many modern customs associated with Thanksgiving "may not be pleasing to God, they are not rooted in paganism" and don't subvert the truth presented in the holy days.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Additionally, COGWA notes that <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/12/established-and-imposed.html">Purim </a>and Hanukkah are not commanded festivals, but that they are mentioned in the Bible. Presumably, they are acceptable because they commemorate important events, even miracles, in Hebrew national history. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hmmmm. I'm debating whether it's even worth my time to dignify that assertion by stating the obvious about the birth of our Savior, whenever it actually happened... </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Nope. It's not. Moving on... </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We also noticed that UCG added a few paragraphs to its annual reheated article about when Jesus was born dismissing the traditional ancient Jewish belief that many prophets were either conceived or born on the same day of the year that they died. Rather than addressing or discrediting our sources, or considering whether this may have been a factor when the original date was set, they brush it off by saying that it "shows how far people are willing to go to justify the Christmas date."</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In addition to the false claims about the Saturnalia, we noticed that UCG is still perpetuating the myth that colonial America banned Christmas because of its pagan origins. COG organizations tend to romanticize these "brighter moments" in history, completely ignoring the fact that the early Puritans rejected Christmas because it was viewed as Catholic, not because they believed it was pagan. And, much like the Waldensians, the Puritans neither kept the Levitical holy days; nor did most worship on Saturday. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Many of the COGS desperately try <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2011/01/cog-worldwide-association-claims-false.html">hitch their wagons</a> to the Puritans, and especially the handful of Baptist Sabbatarian sects of New England. This link is absolutely not true - the COGs stumbled into their brand of Sabbatarianism, prophecy and rejection of mainstream Christian holidays through William Miller, the Great Disappointment, Ellen G. White and <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">others </a>in the Seventh Day Adventist movement, which spawned the Church of God-Seventh Day, which spawned the Worldwide Church of God. If the COGs truly wanted to get back to their Puritan "roots," they would also distance themselves from the evils of dice, card playing and wearing colorful clothing; then also place strict limitations on the consumption of alcohol. I won't be holding my breath. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As xHWA <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/12/3-reasons-why-i-stopped-keeping.html">explained</a>, those who perpetuate these myths in the COGs seem not to be interested in exploring the truth. We've given logical, reasoned alternatives to their narrative. Heck, we've even given them our sources. They're pretty obviously reading what we have to say. Rather than doing any serious research, they dismiss it with a sentence or two, then copy and paste the same arguments they've been making every December since the 1940s.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Honestly, in a way, I can understand. We at ABD absolutely understand what it means to consider that what you've been taught might not be the whole truth. It can cost you your family, your friends, your social support system and your identity. And though these were hard enough, it didn't also cost us our livelihood or our retirement. The COG leadership is fully invested in this narrative, in every sense of the word. If what they teach about the paganism in mainstream Christianity is a lie, then they have no reason to exist. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Since they're not listening, I'd like to talk to you. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I'm not interested in convincing you to celebrate Christmas. Sure, it would be nice not to be sighed over and whispered about behind our backs. It would be nice to share this meaningful time with family. But I'm sure they feel that way about the Feast, too, so I'm not going to throw stones. And I'd have to be pretty foolish to try to tell you that you don't need to celebrate the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened.html">holy days</a> of the Sinai Covenant - but do need to celebrate Christmas - to be right with God. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In fact, that's exactly what I want you to understand - there's nothing you can do to make yourself <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/just-what-do-you-mean-justified.html">right with God</a>. Keeping the Days of Unleavened Bread doesn't make or keep you right with God. Celebrating Easter doesn't make or keep you right with God. Keeping a seventh-day Sabbath doesn't make or keep you right with God. Going to church every Sunday doesn't make or keep you right with God. There is no obedience <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">checklist </a>that secures your salvation. Yes, the Bible makes it abundantly clear that obedience to the teachings of the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/confusing-covenants.html">New Covenant</a>, its Testator and His apostles are part of Christianity. We were bought with a price, we obey our Lord as best we can, following Him and <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/03/gardening-with-god-or-growing-spiritual.html">growing </a>more like Him. But our <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-do-works-factor-into-salvation.html">obedience </a>is the <i>result</i> of our faith and the Holy Spirit in our lives; it is not the <i>cause</i>. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is only one thing that secures your salvation: God's promise to forgive your sins and gift you with eternal life. That promise comes by grace when you place your <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">faith </a>in that covenantal promise, sealed in the blood of His Son Jesus. It was Jesus that made it possible. He is wasn't a step in the holy day plan - He WAS the plan, from the foundation of the world. The holy days, the sabbath, the Sinai Covenant, the law and the prophets were all <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/09/shadows-of-fall-holy-days_28.html">shadows </a>of the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/walk-in-light_20.html">Light </a>of the world, the only Way. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17-20, if Christ is not raised, our faith is futile and we are still in our sins. And that is why Jesus is, in layman's terms, a Big Deal.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We will all stand before God one day, giving account for the way we lived our lives, for every idle word that we spoke. The Bible tells us that faith in Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life, the path to God. It tells us that if we are ashamed of Him, He will be ashamed of us. In that day, you will not be able to point your finger at your minister for relegating Him to a <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2013/12/crazy-about-christmas.html">minimal role </a>in your religious system. You will stand on your own.</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It was a Big Deal when Jesus Christ was born, because that birth set our <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/12/unto-you-child-is-born.html">freedom in motion</a>. Jesus Christ's teachings and ministry were a Big Deal, because He preached the forgiveness of sins and our new birth. Jesus' death was a Big Deal, because our lives can be saved through the blood He shed. And His <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/03/what-days-of-unleavened-bread-dont-tell.html">resurrection </a>was a Big Deal, because it meant that He was Who He said He was, and that we could have faith in His promises of forgiveness, being <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/05/just-what-do-they-mean-born-again.html">born again</a> and receiving eternal life. Your ministers might not make a big deal of those things, but your Bible does. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There's no law that said you had to read the biblical accounts of Christ's birth yesterday or today, just like there's no law that says you must read accounts of His resurrection on the anniversary of its occurrence. But read them - without criticizing the arrival of the wise men or the timeline of when Jesus rose from the dead. Recognize these accounts for the miracles that they were, regardless of when they took place, and what they mean for your life. They were given to you by a God who loves you in order to instruct you, to encourage you, and to give you hope - not coincidentally, the same God who established Jesus as the the plan, the way, the solution for your sin and mine from the foundation of the world. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">He is the image of the invisible God, the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/03/jesus-qualified-to-be-firstborn.html">firstborn </a>of all creation. For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. And He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything He might be pre-eminent. </span></i></div>
<i><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 14.6667px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;">For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, He has now reconciled in His body of flesh by His death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before Him... (Colossians 1:15-22)</span></i></div>
</span></i><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Now THAT's kind of a big deal. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<b>Acts 17:11</b><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-71207453381893875622018-12-23T16:20:00.020-05:002024-02-08T21:18:47.539-05:003 Reasons Why I Stopped Keeping Christmas Part 2<div style="text-align: left;">
Hi there honored guests! It’s the Christmas Season now and I seem to have made writing a blog post about Christmas to be a tradition and after so many years of doing this I just can’t seem to go without it.<br />
<br />
I feel today’s post is worth writing because it illustrates so well what we have been saying for so many years – people refuse to research. Is it that they don’t know how? I don’t think so. I’ve been at this long enough to say that people are plenty capable of research they just refuse to. If someone genuinely doesn't know how to research then they shouldn't be writing articles for a church, or maybe at all. And so, here we are to test and to try, to prove through the fire if I may, the things that they have said. At the end, will they have gold and precious jewels or stubble and ash?<br />
<br />
You might be curious where Part 1 of this post has gotten off to. I enjoy irony and clever little turns, and making this post into Part 2 is all this is. You will find Part 1 on the Church of God - A Worldwide Association (COGWA) Life Hope & Truth website under the title “<i>3 Reasons Why I Stopped Keeping Christmas</i>” by one Mr. Eddie Johnson (2016). My post for you today is a rebuttal. If only Mr. Johnson had known in 2016 what we are going to review now, perhaps he would have changed his outlook.<br />
<br />
So Mr. Johnson starts by telling us how he was once an observer of Christmas and had since converted. Why would anyone make such a switch? He tells us in his 3 points. In a nutshell his three points are: 1. We don’t know when Jesus was born, 2.Christmas was celebrated in pagan Rome, and 3. Jesus warned about human traditions.<br />
Standard fare in Armstrongism. Nothing new. Nothing exciting. He could have taken those from any Plain Truth magazine from the 1950’s. Here is where I begin to wonder if these are his three <i>extra most bestest</i> points, or just three points chosen at random. Keep in mind that he is explaining why he stopped observing Christmas. I would really think that a person would give their best for this. Also, keep in mind that I write this is 2018 and Mr. Johnson wrote his article in 2016, so what I read online is a re-post. COGWA thought so highly of this article that it warranted a re-post. If roles were switched, I would think my three points to be really something if I were going to re-post it. Yet I can't help but find these points to be so standard and vanilla. No offense meant. That's just my opinion.<br />
<br />
Enough chit chat. Let’s get this ball rolling.<br />
<br />
<u>We Don’t Know When Jesus Was Born</u><br />
<br />
I will start off with this – Mr. Johnson is correct in this statement. By now it is extremely close to exactly 1,900 years of trying, yet no one has been able to prove when Jesus was born. We in fact do not know exactly when Jesus was born.<br />
<br />
This is becoming the primary argument from the anti-Christmas group these days. Yet, I find it so insignificant a point. I wouldn’t even consider this one worth mentioning. If it stood by itself, I wouldn’t waste my time with it. Think about it. The incarnation of God is arguably the second most amazing miracle in the history of creation. Nothing, not even the creation of the universe and mankind, can compare to it – except for the death and resurrection, which is the single most important and glorious thing to ever occur in the physical universe. Ponder it. From time immemorial, God planned and waited for the "fullness of time" to make a move so unexpected it catches even the most wise beings that exist off guard. Infinite God laid down His glory and took on the flesh of a lowly human baby. How does that even work? Why should that even be? Born in a barn and laid where the sheep eat so that He could die for us. This is ALMIGHTY GOD we’re talking about here. My mind can’t even grasp it all. Yet there the COGWA is, ignoring it and telling us to ignore it simply because we don’t know on what day it occurred. Seriously? Could there be an argument more weak and beggarly than this? So devoid of substance. So vacuous. So desperate. It takes the least important thing (the date) and makes it the most important thing (don't honor because of the date). There could be no death and resurrection without the birth. The birth is secondary, no doubt, but nevertheless mandatory. So they tell us it’s a sin to honor it because we don’t know the date? "If God wanted you to honor it, He would have told you when it was," they say. Heavenly hosts honored it! But the date is not important to the glory of what happened. We say if God didn't want us to honor it, He wouldn't have told us so very much about it. He spent a great deal of time and prophecy and ink and genetics and foreshadowing to coordinate something that COGWA wants us to ignore. God really worked on this. He lined up the stars just so the Magi would head to Bethlehem for crying out loud. One gets the sense that God purposefully arranged it so the Magi would have a traditional knowledge of stellar signs in order that they would some day make this journey. That had to be hundreds of years in preparation. You think that's nothing just because we don't know on what exact day these things happened? I couldn't disagree more. So I <i>might</i> honor it on the wrong day (or I might honor it on the right day - as you can't prove it's the wrong one any more than I can prove it's the right one). You know what? I'll take my chances.<br />
<br />
About this dating point, I remind you dear reader that the COGWA and other splinter groups in Armstrongism can’t agree on the date of Passover. In the years when Passover happens on a Saturday, they have competing ways to handle it. Two splinters will observe their Passover on different days. If they can’t agree on the date of Passover then they can’t agree on the date of Pentecost. They don’t know when to keep Passover and Pentecost yet they do it. They don’t know when Passover and Pentecost are, but they never once say “we shouldn’t be keeping these things simply because we don’t really know the right date.” No, they pick a date and go with that. Oh, but that very same thing is argued against where honoring the birth of Christ is involved.<br />
<br />
Mr. Johnson goes beyond just the simplicity of not knowing the date and provides us with a quote from Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, where Schaff argues that winter is eliminated as an option due to the sheep in the fields.<br />
<br />
I will give Mr. Johnson credit here where it is due - he quoted a source. He picked a scholarly resource and that is to be commended. I won’t begrudge him this. He could have also quoted Adam Clarke who pretty much says the same thing. However, I don’t call this “research” since anyone with an ounce of determination will have dug down and not given up so easily until the truth, God’s truth, was tightly in hand. Just picking a resource that agrees with you and going with that is not research. It just isn’t. Research involves looking at sources that disagree with your position and carefully weighing why one side has a better argument than the other. You shouldn’t just pretend the other side doesn’t exist and ignore it. I’m not ignoring the other side here. In this day and time, it has been demonstrated so frequently that there absolutely <i>could have</i> been and likely <i>were</i> shepherds in the fields in winter, and especially in the area of Bethlehem, that to claim winter is eliminated is wholly premature.<br />
<br />
I want to quote from an exceedingly well-written study written by J. Hampton Keathley, III on Bible.org, titled “<a href="https://bible.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas">Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?</a>” In the section “Argument Number 5: Uncertainty of the Date of Christ’s Birth“, Mr. Keathley writes about the shepherds:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date."</blockquote>
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.<br />
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
-James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24</blockquote>
Well, well. This argument isn’t rock-solid after all. It could have been either way. There are solid, valid reasons to believe December 25th is <b>not</b> ruled out because of shepherds in the fields. We have several articles about this and links to other articles besides.<br />
<br />
I repeat - winter is not ruled out because of shepherds in the fields. These resources existed in 2016. We had them. But you won’t hear that from COGWA. It’s not part of the narrative.<br />
<br />
Now what do we have? Three, presumably top notch, reasons why this person upended his life, and here the first one is seriously in doubt. <br /><br />Is my response to point #1 a slam dunk? No. But I don’t claim that we know for a fact that Jesus was born on December 25th. Other people make that claim, but not me. Not ABD. We claim that December 25th is possible, and sometimes we even sound as if it is likely, but we never say that it absolutely is correct. We agree with Mr. Johnson that no human knows the right day. What I <u>do</u> have as a slam dunk is that December is <u>not</u> eliminated as a possibility. Mr. Johnson's primary support is that December is eliminated, yet we know for a fact that it is not. Implied in his first point is that since we don't know the day therefore we shouldn't honor Jesus' birth. In response we have given you a reason why we <i>should</i> honor the incarnation regardless of whether or not it’s the right day.<br />
<br />
Point number one as given by COGWA is simply not able to hold water. How about point number two?<br />
<br />
<u>It Was Celebrated In Pagan Rome</u><br />
<br />
Here is where Mr. Johnson takes the train right off the bridge.<br />
<br />
He says, “Dec. 25 was part of Saturnalia celebrations held in pre-Christian Rome.” Why is that taking the train off the track? Because it’s literally, factually, genuinely false. Saturnalia was never on December 25th at any point.<br />
<br />
I invite Mr. Johnson and everyone else besides to read our post <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/12/plain-truth-about-december-25th.html">The Plain truth About December 25</a> where we prove this. I don’t say “prove” lightly. We <u>prove</u> it!<br />
<br />
Anciently, Saturnalia was on December 17th. When Julius Caesar revamped the calendar he added two days to the end of December, this puts Saturnalia on December 19th. We can demonstrate these dates from the <a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/chronography_of_354_06_calendar.htm">Philocalian Calendar</a>. Now that Saturnalia was moved some people kept it on the original date and some on the new. It unofficially grew to 7 days but Augustus Caesar declared it to be a three day festival so that it wouldn't interrupt the courts. Later, Caligula set it to five days. Some time after this the fifth day was abolished, but it was restored again by Emperor Claudius because he knew the Romans were superstitious (see <a href="http://history-world.org/dio4.pdf">Claudius Dio's Rome, Volume 4</a>).<br />
What can we see from this? At its longest point, and only very briefly, Saturnalia was from the 17th to the 23rd of December. Saturnalia was never on December 24th or 25th. Not once. Most ancient Romans in the Christian era would have known the actual date of the Saturnalia as the 17th, but their celebration would have been from the 17th to the 21st.<br /><br />Bear in mind here, when I show you that Saturnalia was a multiple-day festival, that only means the celebration lasted on for a while - it does not mean Saturnalia was on all of those days. Saturnalia was on the 17th originally and the 19th after Julius Caesar reformed the calendar. The official date was the 17th. How do we know this? We check calendars. They say when Saturnalia was. The Catholics have 12 days of Christmas, yet Christmas is only on the 25th of December. Protestants celebrate Christmas practically for an entire month, yet Christmas is only on the 25th of December. I say again, Saturnalia was on the 17th. Period. Saturnalia was never on December 24th or 25th.<br />
<br />
Where does Mr. Johnson get his claim then? Where does he get his blatantly false claim? Once again he cites a source. He links us to an article titled “The History of Christmas” by Lawrence Kelemen (written at some point around 2004) on Judaism Online (aka SimpleToRemember). I can appreciate a person who honestly cites a source, even if I don’t agree with that source’s material. At the very least I can see how they came to their conclusions.<br />
<br />
I know Mr. Johnson actually read that article. How do I know? Because point #2 is basically him quoting that article. He found an article that said what he liked, he assumed they did the homework, and he just lets them talk for him. Unfortunately this is a prime example of why simply picking a source that agrees with what you already want to find is neither wise nor "doing research." Mr. Johnson quoted a source, a tertiary source, who got it completely wrong. The SimpleToRemember article cites sources for some of their other claims, but not for this particular selection. I am only interested in this particular section because this is what Mr. Johnson stands on, so I’ll leave the rest of their article alone. But it's not hard to see why there was no source cited …because there wasn’t a good source to cite. Because it’s wrong!<br />
<br />
Allow me to point out one more thing here. Mr. Johnson’s claim is that Christmas was celebrated in pagan Rome, but all he gave us is a factually erroneous message about Saturnalia. He hasn’t proven his point in any way. Not even slightly. He played switcheroo on us is all. Saturnalia is not Christmas any more than Saturnalia is COGWA's Family Fun Weekend. We here at ABD have investigated, <u>deeply</u> investigated, for years now whether or not Christmas is pagan. Read our articles, we beg you!<br />
<br />
As a side note, Judaism Online mentions that an unwilling human victim was regularly sacrificed as part of Saturnalia festivities. This is ridiculous on its face since <a href="http://oxfordre.com/classics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-3696">human sacrifice was illegal in Rome</a>. I have never read anything from a trustworthy source that proves this. What they are relaying to you are hypotheticals from the most ancient Roman times, not from the period of the Roman Republic or the Empire. In the period of the Roman kings, several cultures in the region did practice human sacrifice, but it was never very popular in Rome, and no document I have ever seen specifically associated with Saturnalia. To paint Saturnalia as a time of ritual human sacrifice is disingenuous.<br />
<br />
So now two legs of this chair are not sturdy. On to the last.<br />
<br />
<u>Jesus Warned About Human Traditions</u><br />
<br />
Yes, He did! Didn’t He??<br />
<br />
Mr. Johnson quotes Matthew here for support. Let’s do that too:<br />
<br />
(MAT. 15: 6b-9) 6[b] Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by <b>your tradition</b>. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. 9 and in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’<br />
<br />
See? He did say it!<br />
Or did He?<br />
<br />
Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, what is one of the most important lessons we’ve learned here at ABD? It is: context, context, context! Never proof text.<br />
<br />
To whom was Jesus speaking? To all Jews? No, to the Pharisees specifically. About what was Jesus citing Isaiah? To protest only holiday traditions? No. Martha wrote a spectacular article on this point titled <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/12/established-and-imposed.html">Established and Imposed</a>. Was what Jesus doing then? Jesus was speaking about the Pharisees taking the clear commandment to be charitable and to honor your father and mother, and negating it entirely with their own commandments. Jesus is very specific here.<br />
<br />
Notice that Mr. Johnson, following many before him, breaks into verse 6 and absconds with 3 ½ verses completely out of their context, then veneers an entirely new meaning onto the verses that simply is not there on its own. <br /><br />I put "6[b]" in my quote of Matthew on purpose, to emphasize that Mr. Johnson didn’t quote all of verse 6. He left half of it out. Let’s investigate the context here by quoting the previous verses and leaving nothing out.<br />
<br />
(MAT. 15: 3-6) 3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.<br />
<br />
That first half of verse 6 is quite telling. Jesus is very specifically talking about the traditions of the <u>Pharisees</u> that have destroyed charity.<br />
<br />
Jesus didn’t pick this fight; the Pharisees did. They came to Him asking Him why He abandoned their traditions. So, He tore into them for abandoning His. This has nothing to do with all <i>human traditions</i>. This has nothing to do with all Pharisaical traditions. This has nothing to do with holidays. It doesn’t even have anything to do with hand washing – which is a tradition. Did Jesus ever say that hand washing was bad? No. Was He angry at hand washing? No. He couldn’t care less about hand washing. He continues on, all the way to verse 20, giving a lesson about how hand washing and food and etc neither here nor there, but what proceeds out of the heart is what matters. He wanted the hand washing to be in its proper perspective. Did He command them to stop washing their hands? No! He just put things into their proper priority.<br />
<br />
I want to repeat this for emphasis: WHAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE HEART IS WHAT MATTERS.<br />
<br />
As Jesus cuts like a sword to the marrow of the matter, Armstrongism tries to distract the discussion back to a superficial point about holiday traditions that isn't even there in the context. Jesus never mentioned holidays. No one there did. He warned about their uncharitable, selfish, greedy hearts.<br />
<br />
So, did Jesus warn us about all traditions as Mr. Johnson claims? No.</div><div style="text-align: left;">Does Mr. Johnson really believe this is about traditions? No. How can I say this so boldly? Because if he did, his article would condemn the COGWA Winter Family Weekend, too. <<<Human tradition!<br />
<br />
No, upon closer examination we find that Jesus did not warn us about traditions at all, except to say that we must not let our traditions excuse us from our responsibilities to the the weightier matters of faith and love. Mr. Johnson, as he was taught, tries to get us to think that Jesus is
prohibiting "man-made traditions." But that's not what's going on here.
Not at all. Jesus warned about what comes out of our hearts, not superficial acts of celebration and decoration. If Christmas really taught us to abandon Jesus, or told us to be uncharitable, then certainly it would apply, because in that case those things from our traditions would be evil. But that is the opposite of Christmas’ lessons. Jesus and charity are primary in the proper and <u>Christian</u> (and I stress Christian as opposed to secular) observance of Christmas. Giving - it’s what Christmas genuinely is all about.<br />
<br />
What does COGWA do? They turn this right around and say, no, defilement comes from the outside, from external and superficial things. Should <i>we</i> not be the ones encouraging <i>them</i> to heed Matthew 15? <br />
<br />
Time after time after tedious time, what do we see going on? Proof texting! Mr. Johnson as he was taught to do (because this is nothing new) takes a verse completely out of context and uses it to an end for which it was never intended. He didn't get a warning about holidays from Matthew 15, he put it in there himself.<br />
<br />
I can hear someone out there saying that God never commanded us to keep Christmas. We do recommend to you that you read Martha’s post “<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/12/established-and-imposed.html">Established and Imposed</a>”. It answers this concern from a Biblical perspective.<br />
<br />
So now we have three prime reasons why Mr. Johnson changed his entire life. We have his top three reasons out of no doubt many more that he didn’t mention. The third one is hollow. <br />
<br />
Please, most patient and understanding reader, permit me a brief sidebar. God bless you for your kindness!<br />
<br />
I can completely understand that in the doctrinal tradition of Armstrongism (COGWA is an Armstrongist church, a splinter from Herbert W Armstrong’s Worldwide Church of God) this third point is much bigger than just Matthew 15. Armstrongism is against Christmas. Armstrongism teaches that the New Covenant is practically identical to the Old Covenant, and thus the Old Covenant holy days are the appropriate holidays, and Christmas is not among them, and so Christmas has no place. l recognize and fully concede that this debate over point #3 is much bigger than what either Mr. Johnson or I have discussed in either article. But this is a review of Mr. Johnson’s article, and this is what Mr. Johnson put in his article, so this is all that I am addressing here. I invite you to read every article we have because they are collectively our responses to the larger debate. I personally feel that we have answered the larger debate and can give a strong argument why it is also off course. So I leave you with this sidebar.<br />
<br />
Moving on to my conclusion.<br />
<br />
<u>Summary</u><br />
<br />
Mr. Johnson’s three points were that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th, that December 25th is pagan, and that Jesus warned against Christmas.<br />
<br />
He said Jesus couldn’t be born in the winter because sheep wouldn’t have been in the fields. What did we see? Yes, they most certainly could have been in the fields in the winter, most especially near Bethlehem.<br />
<br />
He said Saturnalia was on December 25th. What did we see? No it absolutely was not. Not at any time. Saturnalia wasn’t even on the 24th. Sarurnalia was originally on the 17th and later the 19th. And if you read our material you will see much more evidence than just this.<br />
<br />
He said Jesus warned against Christmas. What did we see? Jesus wasn’t talking about holidays, or even traditions for traditions’ sake; He was talking about things that violate the law of love. He was talking about what flows out of the heart. Matthew 15 isn’t about holidays. Matthew 15 isn’t a blanket condemnation of man-made traditions. It is not. Mr. Johnson proof texted material, extracted it from its proper context, and implanted into it a new and wholly inappropriate meaning.<br />
<br />
Three legs of a chair that are all about to come off. Excuse me if I choose not to sit in it with him.<br />
And this was considered such a good article that COGWA re-posted it. You can't see it, but I am cringing.<br />
<br />
Probably the saddest thing about this article is that Mr. Johnson, who I can only assume is a fine person and means well and is doing the best he can with what he believes to be true, changed the entire course of his life upon evidences such as these. I can relate because I did this <i>same thing</i> for these <i>same reasons</i>. <br />The final twist in my clever title is these three reasons were <u>my</u> three reasons, too. I stopped keeping Christmas for these same things, and others. But then I double-checked my work. This is my part 2! The part 2 of my life.<br /><br />I would love to let Mr. Johnson know that there is still time to reconsider. We here at ABD did. Ask the tough questions once more. The truth can handle itself. Perhaps this can be his part 2. I pray it can be yours.<br />
<br />
Thank you for hearing us out. What say you? Ash and stubble, or gold and gems? Whether you side with us or Mr. Johnson, God's blessings to you! At this time of the year and beyond.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<b>Acts 17:11</b><br />
************</div>
xHWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01061716053302210598noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-56927309237089826622018-09-26T10:46:00.004-04:002024-01-21T15:54:49.078-05:00The Feast: Celebrating the Coming Kingdom of Law<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-enrurbVZcqI/W6tu3fcFfXI/AAAAAAAAARg/9pXCsYGFR7ICVbvUJFvCGT3lRBOAQHAAgCEwYBhgL/s1600/garden%2Bgate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="500" height="266" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-enrurbVZcqI/W6tu3fcFfXI/AAAAAAAAARg/9pXCsYGFR7ICVbvUJFvCGT3lRBOAQHAAgCEwYBhgL/s400/garden%2Bgate.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Last time I wrote, I said that I would talk about the biggest reason I believe that many who are struggling in Armstrongism might not feel like rejoicing at the Feast of Tabernacles. In that <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2018/09/more-than-just-hunger-pangs.html">post</a>, I poked fun at a handful of smaller annoyances that many experience. But I believe there is a bigger problem with the Feast - an underlying cause for the feelings of emptiness.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>The Kingdom of Law</u></b><br />
<br />
I noticed that, this year, COGWA created a shareable “Feast of Tabernacles” <a href="https://lifehopeandtruth.com/whatisthefeast/">social media guide</a> that the group encouraged its members to share with their friends.<br />
<br />
It explains what the Feast is, includes references from Leviticus and Deuteronomy, tells how to choose a site, talks about meeting friends and celebrating a foretaste of God's Kingdom, and concludes by encouraging readers to go home, plan for next year and learn more about the holy days.<br />
<br />
Anybody notice something missing? Something kinda important? Um, maybe something, ANYTHING, about the king who returns to rule this kingdom?<br />
<br />
On this explicitly sharable, social-media ready statement to the world, we have little indication that this document came from a Christian organization. The only oblique reference to Jesus Christ comes in point 3 of 5:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“We look forward to the time when all who have not had an opportunity for salvation will be resurrected to physical life and have a chance to live life according to God's plan in the world created by Christ during His millennial rule. God will then judge all people by their actions.”</blockquote>
<br />
Sure, it's not exactly vintage <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">Herbert W Armstrong</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K39vwai_KNk/W6tp64-h7OI/AAAAAAAAARM/5kqAIVWA0QAA0rDBB-q6iGn82uHjTpvbQCLcBGAs/s1600/long%2Blist%2Bof%2Brules.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="350" height="201" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K39vwai_KNk/W6tp64-h7OI/AAAAAAAAARM/5kqAIVWA0QAA0rDBB-q6iGn82uHjTpvbQCLcBGAs/s320/long%2Blist%2Bof%2Brules.jpg" width="320" /></a>“Then I stated with all the power God gave me that I was the representative of the Great God, and that I was there to warn them that the 6,000 years are just about up, and that God would very soon supernaturally INTERVENE, and send the Messiah, Christ, in supreme power and<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
glory to SET UP THAT WORLD-RULING GOVERNMENT, to rule with GOD'S GOVERNMENT – and His Laws that will CAUSE peace, happiness, and universal well-being, for the next thousand years on earth. That the nations would FIGHT against Him, but that God will FORCE a rebellious humanity to have PEACE, prosperity, and happiness. This, I said, is the Message of the Kingdom of God.” (HWA Co-worker letter, 11/26/73, courtesy of Banned by HWA). </blockquote>
<br />
Rather, it's a kinder, gentler translation of HWA's words. COGWA's message may be carefully cloaked in millennial language and allusions to “Christ,” but the underlying message is the same. The Feast of Tabernacles - as celebrated by the COGWA and the other Armstrongist <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">Churches of God</a> – has the same basic theme as its other observances and messages - living by the Sinai Covent law of Israel; and being judged for salvation on how good of a job you do.<br />
<br />
Thank I'm exaggerating? I took some time to listen to the featured Feast sermon on the United Church of God's member web site. Now, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/01/beyond-today-magazine-united-church-of.html">UCG </a>is often criticized by more hardline Armstrongist groups for being the most evangelical splinter group to come out of the Worldwide Church of God. Can you guess upon which book the speaker, longtime pastor Jerold Aust, based this keynote Feast of Tabernacles sermon?<br />
<br />
Nehemiah. Yup, some of the classic millennial, gospel-centered, forwarding-looking chapters of the Old Testament right there. (imagine sarcasm font here).<br />
<br />
So, according to Aust, God sent Israel into captivity because they didn't celebrate His feasts. To be fair, that may have been a part of it. But Jeremiah 25 tells us specifically that God sent Judah into captivity because of their idolatry. Verses 5 and 6 tell us that the Jeremiah warned Judah: <i>“saying, turn now, every one of you, from his evil way and evil deeds, and dwell upon the land that the Lord has given to you and your fathers from of old and forever. Do not go after other gods to serve and worship them, or provoke me to anger with the work of your hands. Then I will do you no harm.”</i><br />
<br />
Judah did not listen to the prophets and continued to worship false gods, so the Lord used Nebuchadnezzar to defeat them and put them in captivity. But I digress.<br />
<br />
Anyway, Aust noted that Ezra and Nehemiah read the book of the law to the Israelites, and then reminded them not to weep, because it was a feast day to the Lord and they were commanded to rejoice. And so instead, the people made booths and feasted, and the heads of the households came together to study the law. Happy Feast!<br />
<br />
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EI6VPmHNT4I/W6txzcZjvkI/AAAAAAAAAR0/LqGhZm5KKMcZvPcudPwCP73LCpkJ_PSFgCLcBGAs/s1600/paul%2Brejoices%2B%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="206" data-original-width="227" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EI6VPmHNT4I/W6txzcZjvkI/AAAAAAAAAR0/LqGhZm5KKMcZvPcudPwCP73LCpkJ_PSFgCLcBGAs/s1600/paul%2Brejoices%2B%25282%2529.jpg" /></a>But rejoicing isn't just for the Old Testament! Aust then scripture-flips forward to Philippians 4:4, which reminds us to always rejoice in the Lord. Now, Philippians doesn't mention the Feast of Tabernacles or any millennial reign. In fact, it appears that Paul is writing from prison and spends his letter recounting many of his trials, exhorting his brothers in Christian living and talk about the fact that he has learned to rejoice and be content in any situation, including his current imprisonment. But...he says to REJOICE! So it must jive with Nehemiah and the Feast of Booths!<br />
<br />
If that isn't enough evidence, Aust then turns to Romans 5:2, which breaks in mid-thought: <i>“Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” </i><br />
<br />
Now that MUST be millennial! Paul is rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God!<br />
<br />
Yes and no. Mostly no, but a little bit yes. Paul has just finished a treatise on justification by grace through faith, and is talking about our standing before God in Jesus. We can have hope of being glorified because God promises it to those who place their faith in Jesus, according to the verse that immediately precedes it. Immediately after, Paul talks about rejoicing in our suffering because it builds character, and that character produces hope – a hope that is bolstered by God's love and the Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
But wait, Mr. Aust mentions the Holy Spirit, too! It is, after all, the down payment we receive on our eternal life. And if we are able to <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/08/get-me-off-this-plane.html">try hard enough</a> to foot the rest of the bill, well, then, God will make good on His promise!<br />
<br />
In fact, Aust says, it is our responsibility to do so, including keeping the Feast! After all, the Bible says God will shorten the tribulation for the sake of the elect. Then, once we have fulfilled our responsibility by qualifying through keeping the law, we can get back to rebuilding the earth and teaching the generations who are still alive and are resurrected how to keep the law. Which brings us full circle back to COGWA's social media campaign.<br />
<br />
In summary: we keep the Feast of Tabernacles in order to obey the law. If we do a good enough job keeping the law, we will qualify to be in God's Kingdom, where we will teach others how to keep the law, so that they can also eventually be judged on their ability to keep the law.<br />
<br />
But this isn't earning our salvation, the COGs tell us.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><u>Veiled Hearts and Minds</u></b><br />
<br />
This whole discussion reminds me of the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened.html">spiritual blindness</a> that mixing the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/confusing-covenants.html">covenants </a>seems to promote in the COGs. Specifically, 2 Corinthians 3. Here, I'll throw in a few for free.<br />
<br />
<i>Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? (v. 7-8).</i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D3hpeapM8z8/W6tzDGU0d-I/AAAAAAAAASI/eeMdvq40gLA4RltN-V23Eo-Pk47g2x8UQCEwYBhgL/s1600/veil.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="199" data-original-width="300" height="132" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D3hpeapM8z8/W6tzDGU0d-I/AAAAAAAAASI/eeMdvq40gLA4RltN-V23Eo-Pk47g2x8UQCEwYBhgL/s200/veil.jpg" width="200" /></a><i>Indeed this is the case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that has surpassed it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. (v. 10-11). </i><br />
<i><br /></i> <i>But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day </i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<i> <i>whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. (verses 14-16). </i></i><br />
<br />
<br />
In fact, many COG articles I've read spend so much ink demonstrating to us that Jesus kept the Feast that they barely have time or space to explain why Jesus really matters.<br />
<br />
Let's get this straight. Yes, Mr. Aust is correct. The New Testament writers discuss topics like hope and joy quite a bit. And their hope and joy came from the fact that they stood <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/just-what-do-you-mean-justified.html">justified </a>before God through <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">Jesus Christ's sacrifice</a>, not in their keeping of the law. They were grateful that they no longer had to fear eternal punishment when they fell short of this law, the law which they themselves stated they were unable to keep:<br />
<br />
<i>“Though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee, as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith...” Philippians 3:4-9.</i><br />
<br />
Let's be clear, because I know many claim Paul is just talking about circumcision, just like they claim he is talking about circumcision alone in Acts 15. Not true. The use of the Greek conjunction <i>“te”</i> in Acts 15:5 indicates the Judaizers were stating Gentiles must both be circumcised AND keep the law of Moses, not be circumcised in keeping with the law of Moses. This same law which, as Peter states in verse 10, neither he nor his fathers could bear? Circumcision wasn't the yoke of bondage. <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2010/10/law-of-moses-law-of-god.html">The Law of Moses</a> was the yoke of bondage.<br />
<br />
Here are some other statements the New Testament writers - those guys whom Aust seems to think are all about rejoicing over the law - made about the law:<br />
<br />
<i>Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by Him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38-39). </i><br />
<br />
<i>For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law, there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring – not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” (Romans 4:13-16). </i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kchaLcGC3BE/W6t2fzgRniI/AAAAAAAAASk/VSJmK2cStsA2qwoqYvY2RcNl4zCSWMPugCLcBGAs/s1600/bride%2Bbetween%2Btwo%2Bmen%2B%25282%2529.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="160" data-original-width="178" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kchaLcGC3BE/W6t2fzgRniI/AAAAAAAAASk/VSJmK2cStsA2qwoqYvY2RcNl4zCSWMPugCLcBGAs/s1600/bride%2Bbetween%2Btwo%2Bmen%2B%25282%2529.jpg" /></a><i>For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man, she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions around by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:2-6). </i><br />
<br />
<i>For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. Hebrews 8:7</i><br />
<br />
<i>In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13). </i><br />
<br />
<i>We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and now by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:15-16). </i><br />
<br />
In Galatians 3:2-3, Paul could just as easily be asking Jerold Aust, or Jim Franks, or Gerald Weston, or Stephen Flurry: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Mixing Wineskins</b><br />
<br />
The Feast of Tabernacles, as taught and observed by the COGs, try to do just that: they celebrate a theology in which the “down payment” of the Holy Spirit is gained by repentance and confession of faith, then grasped onto for dear life by observing cherry-picked tenets of the law. If you hit an unquantifiable, unmeasurable <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">threshold of obedience</a> to that “law,” you qualify for eternal life in God's Kingdom, where you will teach survivors of Armageddon, and eventually the whole world, how to keep the law well enough to <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/03/jesus-qualified-to-be-firstborn.html">qualify </a>for eternal life.<br />
<br />
(I am not getting into an argument about the Great White Throne judgment in what is already a ridiculously long post. Suffice it to say that most Christians believe the book of Hebrews when it says that it is appointed for all men to die once and then be judged, and the book of Romans when it says that there is no condemnation in the judgment for those who are found in Christ).<br />
<br />
However, the Bible describes things a little differently for those who accept grace through faith, but return to law-keeping to maintain their right standing with God.<br />
<br />
<i>Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:2-4). </i><br />
<br />
Again, I remind you, this is not just circumcision we are talking about. Acts 15 clearly tells us, unequivocally in the Greek, that Gentiles were being pressured to be circumcised AND keep the law. So, if you are keeping components of law in order to have right standing with God, then Galatians states that Christ's sacrifice does nothing for you.<br />
<br />
You are probably asking, how do I know whether I am keeping the festivals in order to maintain my standing with God? Well, let me ask YOU a question: what do you think would happen to you if you stopped?<br />
<br />
Do you believe you would be forfeiting your eternal life? If so, there's your answer.<br />
<br />
<br />
So, that's why the Feast begins to feel hollow to those who see the cracks in Armstrongism. You are <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/04/spiritual-traps-from-days-of-unleavened_28.html">mixing wineskins</a>. You are seeking the joy, fulfillment and peace of the New Covenant as described by Paul, Peter and John, but trying to grasp it - told you it is possible to obtain it – told you MUST qualify for it or else - through the practices of Israel. You are searching for light among the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/search?q=shadows">shadows</a>.<br />
<br />
If you are part of the bride of Christ, you can only be party to one covenant at a time – the Sinai Covenant or the New Covenant. The Sinai Covenant can't help but leave you feeling empty. It was specifically designed to do so, in order to point to future fulfillment in <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/10/walk-in-light_20.html">Christ</a>. Feeling that hollowness isn't an indication that there's something wrong with you. It's an indication that there's something right, and that God is calling you into that better covenant with better promises. You've learned the lesson. Maybe it's time to leave the tutor behind.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-31838786722298030052018-09-18T23:38:00.001-04:002024-01-21T15:54:28.769-05:00More than just Hunger Pangs<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PVXBh-0mN98/W6HETu-FHtI/AAAAAAAAAQ4/OUb6Lc0GbcUo5LgzZkM_qujj43RAk9HigCLcBGAs/s1600/stomach%2Bpain.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="1000" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PVXBh-0mN98/W6HETu-FHtI/AAAAAAAAAQ4/OUb6Lc0GbcUo5LgzZkM_qujj43RAk9HigCLcBGAs/s320/stomach%2Bpain.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Happy Day of Atonement, reader! So, how are you feeling?<br />
<br />
Not great? Why am I not surprised?<br />
<br />
It's because I know about your secret. No, it's not the one about the raisins you snuck into the bathroom and ate. That, in fact, was me, one Day of Atonement when I was pregnant.<br />
<br />
No, your secret is this: when everyone else is feeling better after they break their fast, you'll still have a gnawing pain in your stomach. While they are chattering gleefully, counting down until they leave town for the Feast of Tabernacles, you're wondering how on earth you're going to make it through the next 10 days.<br />
<br />
On this Day of Atonement, we could review what <a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5528158760608808912&postID=1291962498720432654">Azazel </a>literally meant. We could discuss why <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">Herbert Armstrong's</a> tortured explanation of the English term “at-one-ment” to describe a concept written in a different language more than 1500 years ago is nonsensical. We could talk about what the term "atonement" really means.<br />
<br />
But really, today, I'd rather just give you a little validation. I know how you're feeling. It wasn't so long ago that I was in your shoes, which is why I try to eke out a little time to write at this point in the year. We at As Bereans Did know the spring and fall holy days are often when questioning members of today's Armstrongist Churches of God often come face-to-face with their doubts. It's not a fun place to be.<br />
<br />
So today, I'd like to get just one point across to you. And it's this:<br />
<br />
You are not crazy.<br />
<br />
Yes. That's it. You are not crazy. Followed by, you are not alone. But right now, I'll settle for, you are not crazy. The Feast is extremely stressful and often discouraging. Here are some of the top reasons why:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Travel: Driving yourself nuts.</b><br />
<br />
Rising air fares means that more and more people are driving to the Feast each year. This year's Sunday-to-Sunday span gives you a little more flexibility at the beginning. But departing on a Sunday night after the eighth day is over means you'll drive through the night or start the work/school week in the hole.<br />
<br />
And most feast-goers are driving further than ever. When I was a child, there were about three feast sites within a six-hour drive from my home. Splintering, however, has left you with fewer Feast sites that are farther between.<br />
<br />
For example, if you started at the United Church of God's headquarters site near Cincinnati, Ohio, but wanted not to keep the Feast in Cincinnati, it would take you almost 350 miles and nearly 7 hours to drive to the closest site in Snowshoe, West Virginia. If you want to avoid driving through mountains, you could always choose the Wisconsin Dells, which is the next closest. It's only about 500 miles away and about 8 hours of driving.<br />
<br />
And I'm not just picking on UCG. If you were leaving from the Living Church of God's headquarters congregation in Charlotte, North Carolina, you'd have to travel 250 miles to Hilton Head – which thankfully is still on the map after Hurricane Florence. Had Florence taken a different path, the Charlatans (whoops, stupid autocorrect!) would have to put in 470 miles of driving to the next closest site - located in exotic, millennial Earlanger, Kentucky.<br />
<br />
Mentioning Florence reminded me of my next point:<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Holy Day Season or Hurricane Season, which?</b><br />
<br />
God gave the Feast of Tabernacles to the Hebrews, who lived in the Middle East. He didn't give it to the Americans, or to the Filipino, or even to the Philippians. They celebrated the Feast in Jerusalem. But instead of learning from the missteps of King Jeroboam, who moved his Feast to a new date and city for political reasons, or believing the book of Hebrews says about the Sinai Covenant being obsolete, church leaders have decided God is placing his name in hurricane-prone locations like Panama City and Myrtle Beach.<br />
<br />
I recently read comments from older WCG members who recall "heroically" riding out storm bands during services in the meeting tent at God's True Feast in Jeykll Island, Georgia. This kind of hubris shows a complete lack of Philadelphian love and concern for the rescue workers who no doubt would have been called in to work, even on a high holy day, and endangered had tragedy struck. Today's feast-goers seem to to have a little more sense, although I recall some subtle bravado from COGWA members at Orange Beach last year when Hurricane Nate approached.<br />
<br />
Several east coast Feast sites seemed to have dodged the bullet with Florence, although some forecasters say the storm's remnants could circle back around to the Carolinas. So good for them! However, COGWA's Feast site in Baguio City, Philippines was not so lucky. The city was recently battered by Super Typhoon Mangkhut. Does this mean that God is more pleased with LCG than with COGWA? Or are COGWA's Orange Beach feast-goers more righteous than their Filipino counterparts? Scoffing at less fortunate and speculating about their righteousness from outside the storm's path doesn't mean God is happier with you or your organization. It means you're a jerk.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Not getting the message</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the daily messages at the Feast of Tabernacles. It's not enough that you had to sit through the message. Now you have to listen to everyone talk about how great it was.<br />
<br />
Sure, you might get one or two inspiring messages, but the rest sound like the speaker forgot he had a message and just punted. Now, I understand everyone punts sometimes. I mean, I obviously am right now. But the ministerial teams for most Feast sites start assigning days and teleconferencing about them in JUNE. If you started in June, come September, it should not sound like you punted: And yet, predictably, we still end up with:<br />
<br />
<i>The classic opening night message:</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We made it! It is such a privilege to be here! After all, there are many who were here last year who are not today. Some of them are passed on and awaiting the first resurrection (<i>we hope</i>). Some infidels have left since the last split. (<i>The infidels were our best friends until last year. Now they're keeping the Feast with another organization in the next tourist trap town over, and we're secretly hoping to run into them at Denny's</i>). And still others have fallen away from God's truth and forgotten the great meaning of these days (<i>although they're not in the path of this oncoming hurricane, so they may have more time to repent</i>). </blockquote>
<br />
<i>It's the First Day:</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We're celebrating the Feast! This time pictures when we will rule the earth with Jesus Christ for a thousand years. (<i>Why is he talking about Jesus? What does he think this is, the Feast of Trumpets?</i>) Don't forget that you are literally commanded to spend a tenth of your income on food, fine wine and whatever your heart desires! After all, this week pictures the Kingdom of God! <i>(you become vaguely uncomfortable as you realize that the Bible directly states that the Kingdom of God is more than eating and drinking. What's worse, the description the guy at the lectern gave is sounding more and more like something Solo</i>m<i>on disparaged in the book of Ecclesiastes). </i></blockquote>
<br />
<i>The Acrostic Sermon: </i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In this mid-Feast sermon, someone either forgot he was speaking or lost his notes earlier in the week. So he goes ahead and writes a cringe-worthy message where the main points spell out words like “STAR,” “FEAST,” or, if you're really unlucky, “KINGDOM” <i>(now we're NEVER making it to Disney World after church gets out). </i></blockquote>
<br />
As usual, I don't fault anyone for worshiping God the best way they know how. This is a tongue-in-cheek post intended to give a little comic relief. If this is truly what God expects, of us, then it's all worth it and more. After all, an eight-hour ride in a car is certainly shorter than any of Paul's missionary journeys. Being in the path of a hurricane is no comparison to being shipwrecked IN a storm. And being stuck in a tourist trap is certainly much better than in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace.<br />
<br />
If it feels like you're the only one at the Feast who doesn't seem to be rejoicing, take heart. No, you're not crazy. Rather, God is slowly removing the veil (2 Corinthians 3:15) and drawing you to His truth. So, if you're still not feeling very joyful, well, I think I know why. Let me tell you...<br />
<br />
Next time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-21365576545841718392018-09-09T22:51:00.002-04:002024-01-21T15:43:10.250-05:00Overcoming and the Feast of Trumpets<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yanGSqCbang/W5Xbh-zrpbI/AAAAAAAAAQk/RwtJwR8OGCYuZB-AR6Gtmnn472j56aQsgCLcBGAs/s1600/resurrection%2Btombstone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="445" data-original-width="640" height="222" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yanGSqCbang/W5Xbh-zrpbI/AAAAAAAAAQk/RwtJwR8OGCYuZB-AR6Gtmnn472j56aQsgCLcBGAs/s320/resurrection%2Btombstone.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
As the Churches of God are celebrating the Feast of Trumpets, I'm sure there will be plenty of COG critics who make a big deal about the fact that this day is never even mentioned in the New Testament.<br />
<br />
I won't be one of them.<br />
<br />
Sure, if you want to get technical, it isn't. The epistles do make passing references to the Days of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost and the Day of Atonement. But, despite NT references to trumpets and resurrections and Jesus' return, poor old Rosh Hashanah itself doesn't even get a mention.<br />
<br />
But that's ok. I don't really care. Because today, I don't want to <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">argue about whether the COGs are correct about what the Feast of Trumpets pictures, or how it will play out. I don't plan to debate Heaven versus soul sleep. For the purposes of this discussion, let's just assume you're right. Because, at the end of the day – or really, the End of Days – you and I basically share the same hope: that Jesus Christ will return, that the dead in Christ will rise, and that we will be numbered among the saints in God's family. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Paul gives us the basis for this hope in 1 Corinthians 15:51-52:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">No matter what our differences, this victory over death is our common hope. So how can we be sure we will "make it"? How can we make sure we have overcome? That we'll be there? This is the real question, the real important point of discussion. Many Feast of Trumpets sermons - and really, a good number of messages -</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> come back to in the COGs. They seem to be pretty certain we must <b>DO </b>something, although they tell us in different ways:</span><br />
<br />
The <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/01/beyond-today-magazine-united-church-of.html">United Church of God</a>, for example, soberly calls us to action:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Think about this in regard to this festival, this holy day, and this assemblage. Every day in our life, there should be the sounding of a symbolic trumpet of urgency for us to live for God, developing a relationship with God, preparing for that time when we will be changed at the sounding of a trumpet, and our bodies changed from mortal to immortality, as Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the resurrection chapter". (<u>Beyond Today</u>: Feast of Trumpets: An Urgency to Live for God Everyday, Darris McNeely, September 11, 2015)</span></blockquote>
<br />
The <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/01/social-media-pays-cogwa-calculated.html">Church of God, a Worldwide Association</a>, reminds us that failure is not an option - but not <i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">quite </i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">how the Bible teaches it (and I'm still waiting for them to explain me how to "use" the Holy Spirit like a pressure washer or something): </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"God did not call us to fail. When we repent and die with Christ through baptism, we begin a new life—a life fueled by the Holy Spirit, the power of God. There’s a lifetime of work ahead of us as we strive to put out sin and grow in righteousness, but thanks to the Holy Spirit and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it’s work we can accomplish." (Lifehopeandtruth.com, The Plan of God, Day 3: The Power to Overcome.)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/10/whats-written-between-lines-in-lcgs.html">Living Church of God </a>invokes <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">Herbert W Armstrong</a>, founder of the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">COG movement</a>, in their current literature to deliver subtle</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, thought-provoking ultimatums: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Repeatedly Jesus warned us to watch, regarding His second coming! Could it be possible that, unless we are observing the Feast of Trumpets, as the first-century Church of God was observing Pentecost, that we shall not be ready, or caught up to meet Him? We do not—we cannot, of course, say; but we do ask the question. Is it not possible? Let us humbly and willingly yield to walk obediently in all the light.” (Herbert W Armstrong, <u>Pagan Holidays or God’s Holy Days—Which? </u>, p. 34.)</span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And the <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/08/suicide-in-philadelphia-church-of-god.html">Philadelphia Church of God</a> hands us not-so-subtle ultimatums: </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“We can’t carelessly relegate the Feast of Trumpets to just another day to give an offering and then get on with the fast to sort of punish ourselves before the “fun” starts at the Feast of Tabernacles. If we allow ourselves to drift into that contemptuous attitude, then we will not be accounted worthy to escape His wrath at His coming! (Luke 21:35-36). He won’t count us worthy to be born into His Family.” (<u>Remember the Feast of Trumpets, and God Will Remember You!</u> John Amos, Philadelphia Church of God, 1992). </span></blockquote>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Regardless of which COG flavor you choose, the same underlying message comes through loud and clear: you must be <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/salvation-is-not-sticker-chart.html">doing <i>something</i></a>, the <i>right </i>something, and keep doing it correctly until you're done. Granted, they never tell you exactly WHAT that something is, or how well you must do it, or how long you must do it. </span><br />
<br />
Thankfully, the Bible DOES tell us how this victory over death comes, though it isn't through what WE do. Not surprisingly, it comes just a few verses after Paul's description of the resurrection:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Corinthians 15:57. </i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Wait, what? </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let me rephrase that without the complicating commas and clauses. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><i>God </i>gives us the victory. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>We do not secure it ourselves, <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-criminal-cross-and-comma.html">through works</a>:</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. - Titus 3:4-6</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. - Ephesians 2:8-9</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b>This victory comes through</b></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><b> Jesus, not through <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/06/just-what-do-you-mean-justified.html">maintaining </a>a state of grace through <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/07/imputed-righteousness-gods-exit-strategy.html">ongoing justification</a>. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through Him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. - Romans 5:1-2</i></span><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>We do NOT begin our Christian life with an act of faith, but reach its <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2017/04/you-will-never-be-worthy.html">final objective </a>through physical works. </b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works on the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? - Galatians 3:2-3</i></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b>In fact, our works would secure a much different <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/08/get-me-off-this-plane.html">outcome</a>: </b><br />
<i><br /></i>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. Romans 4:4.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23. </i></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<b>This victory - <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/03/gardening-with-god-or-growing-spiritual.html">over sin</a> in this life and over death at the end - is the eventual fruit of our <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-do-works-factor-into-salvation.html">faith</a>, not of our <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/01/abrahams-faith-and-works-or-faith-and.html">works</a>: </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world – our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? - 1 John 5:4</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i><br /></i></span>
<b>We overcome by professing our faith in the blood of the lamb, not in what we do. </b><br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony</span>; and<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> they loved not their lives unto the death. - Revelation 12:10-12. </span></i><br />
<br />
So what can we do to make sure that we "make it?"<br />
<br />
Not a whole lot. Not keep the Sabbath. Not count the new moons correctly from Jerusalem, to make sure we are spot-on about when to keep the holy days. Not adopt a vegetarian diet to avoid eating any unclean ingredients. Not take a vow of silence so that we can never lie again.<br />
<br />
Really, all we can do is choose to believe the One who promises to forgive our sins and grant us eternal life through the shed blood of His Son. And then take it on faith.<br />
<br />
Good thing that was what He really wanted anyway.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5528158760608808912.post-49088620482024443452018-06-23T23:49:00.002-04:002024-01-21T15:01:18.904-05:00British Israelism: A Royal Mess<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Js9vOjOfHbM/Wy8Jyp3CgdI/AAAAAAAAAPU/7auc68cPHksLDCB1u7lG6n-ohGV7z4kwACEwYBhgL/s1600/royal%2Bwedding.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="391" data-original-width="695" height="225" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Js9vOjOfHbM/Wy8Jyp3CgdI/AAAAAAAAAPU/7auc68cPHksLDCB1u7lG6n-ohGV7z4kwACEwYBhgL/s400/royal%2Bwedding.webp" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Apparently, I was a traitor to my country and my gender when I slept in a few Saturdays ago instead of getting up to watch the royal wedding between Prince Harry and Yankee Meghan Markle. I later saw that I had missed hours of chatter between my girlfriends - the dress, the flowers, the royal lip bite... I guess I shouldn't be surprised. No matter how old we girls get, deep down, we still want to be a princess...<br />
<br />
What did surprise me, however, was the number of Church of God members who got up at 6:00 on a Saturday morning to watch the event.<br />
<br />
Let me repeat that, in case you missed it.<br />
<br />
DOZENS OF FAITHFUL SABBATH KEEPERS SET THEIR ALARMS TO GET UP EARLY TO WATCH THE ROYAL WEDDING ON TELEVISION ON THE SABBATH.<br />
<br />
Given that, growing up, I was expected to turn off my favorite TV show mid-skit at sunset Friday, I was more than a little shocked to see people openly broadcasting their decision to watch.<br />
<br />
So how was it that these proud, faithful Sabbatarians were not seeking their own pleasure on the Sabbath? Because, of course, it was an important event in the timeline of The Church!<br />
<br />
Wait, what?<br />
<br />
According to Herbert W Armstrong, the founder of the organization that has splintered into today's Churches of God, the British people are descended from the "lost" Hebrew tribe of Ephriam. This theory, known as British-Israelism, also claims that Americans are descended from Manasseh and many European nations descended from the other "lost" tribes. Most of the COG splinters still believe and promote British Israelism today.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fr01wI8OMAY/Wy8Kgk_5oRI/AAAAAAAAAPc/KX8lJtehPG45oq4gY8HUUwuUzGK1mF23QCLcBGAs/s1600/coronation%2Bchair.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="750" data-original-width="585" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fr01wI8OMAY/Wy8Kgk_5oRI/AAAAAAAAAPc/KX8lJtehPG45oq4gY8HUUwuUzGK1mF23QCLcBGAs/s320/coronation%2Bchair.jpg" width="249" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Coronation chair with the Stone of Destiny.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Further, Armstrong taught that the British throne is the fulfillment of God's promise that David would never fail to have a descendant on the throne of Israel. As COG legend had it, David's "true" throne departed Israel when the prophet Jeremiah and his daughter, Tea-Tephi, took Jacob's pillar stone to Ireland and buried it in Hill Tara. The stone later traveled to Scotland,<br />
and then down to England, where it is known as the Stone of Scone/Stone of Destiny, and the royals still use it as part of their coronations. So, as heirs, Prince Charles and Prince William must be descendants of David. And if his father and brother are, well, Henry must be, too.<br />
<br />
<i>(Wait a minute. Descendants of David would be from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Ephriam. So is the British royal family descended from Judah or Ephriam? I'm so confused!) </i><br />
<br />
Don't overthink this, Martha! The British monarchs are descended from Hebrew tribes and sit on the throne of David. Who could be more Jewish, er, Ephriam-ish (?) than the British royals? And we, as Americans, are their brothers, also descended from the Hebrew tribes. It's our DUTY to watch this wedding! It would be like missing a major moment in family history, or a family wedding. We CAN'T have that! (<i>Warning: Don't EVEN get me started on the way Sabbath weddings have played out in my family</i>).<br />
<br />
No. I maintain that we NEED to overthink this. If neither one jot nor tittle claims what the COGs claim it means, then it's our DUTY to analyze this point. So, is there any way to find out whether princes William and Henry, AKA Harry, are really descended from any of the tribes of Israel? It's an important question, since we're flirting with Sabbath-breaking at the very least. Is there any way to test Armstrong's theory?<br />
<br />
Well, there is, thanks - unfortunately - to the turbulent relationship and well-publicized extramarital exploits of Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana. The royals, tabloids and British DNA testing companies have been rehashing that topic for more than a decade. After all, if William and Harry were not sired by Charles, Prince of Wales, then they are not heirs to the throne. And if they were, then they share his royal blood and his DNA. And, if they and Charles are descended from the tribe of Ephraim, they should share genetic markers with those who have Jewish DNA.<br />
<br />
After all, didn't God Himself tell David that his descendants would never lack a man " to sit on the throne of Israel? (1 Kings 2:4 and 9:5). Those who believe in British Israelism say that the throne of David still exists in the form of the British monarchy, so if anyone should have DNA evidence that they're related to other Hebrews, it's the royal family, right?<br />
<br />
Let's not get the cart before the horse, though.<br />
<br />
(Again, please don't discount DNA evidence because it is a product of science and scientists, who are frequently atheists. DNA evidence is not speculation about what happened millions of years ago. It's largely performed using tissue like hair, cheek swabs and blood samples from living humans (or tissue left on confirmed, authentic artifacts, mummies, and in some cases <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2015/11/dear-cogwa-youre-still-not-israelites.html">frozen human remains</a>) and is considered reliable enough that it's admissible in court.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hsl2Wm_VVxE/Wy8M8MhRcDI/AAAAAAAAAQM/JIS6_s31qUAtoka5uDbCjDn3J7Yqd1D1QCLcBGAs/s1600/princess%2Bdiana.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="467" data-original-width="700" height="213" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hsl2Wm_VVxE/Wy8M8MhRcDI/AAAAAAAAAQM/JIS6_s31qUAtoka5uDbCjDn3J7Yqd1D1QCLcBGAs/s320/princess%2Bdiana.webp" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Princess Diana and Hewitt in 1989</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
First of all, though he's far from the heir apparent, Prince Harry IS Prince Charles' son, as is his brother William. It was rumored for years that Harry might have been fathered by army officer Major James Hewitt, with whom Diana admitted she had an affair. But that affair started when Harry was three years old - Harry was born in September 1984 and Diana<br />
didn't meet Hewitt until 1986. Charles himself confirmed he was Harry's father before the young prince went away to school at Eton in 1995.<br />
<br />
Still, when it comes to the throne, one can't be too careful. Apparently, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth's husband insisted upon a DNA test, according to the <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432660/posts">Agence France-Presse</a>, which proved Harry was Charles' son. As if that wasn't enough, the former News of the World tabloid was reported to have obtained and tested a lock of hair from Harry and determined<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-prince-harry-definitely-not-james-hewitts-son-according-to-dna-test"> he was not Hewitt's son</a>.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zgv9vZ_ZkcU/Wy8Lk6Mk0WI/AAAAAAAAAP0/8fsPLmtyXcM0jjz8iWXKfziRxMyXlx9eQCLcBGAs/s1600/harry.hewitt.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="420" data-original-width="800" height="168" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zgv9vZ_ZkcU/Wy8Lk6Mk0WI/AAAAAAAAAP0/8fsPLmtyXcM0jjz8iWXKfziRxMyXlx9eQCLcBGAs/s320/harry.hewitt.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Prince Harry/James Hewitt<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Now, the royals have not released DNA test results - presumably, it would be beneath them. But you'd better believe if something were found to be amiss, we would know about it, and the royal succession would have been changed. This is the kind of stuff over which the War of the Roses and the Hundred Years War were fought. Tabloids and DNA companies have run their own tests, reportedly on samples from the princes, and demonstrably on their cousins, and their findings have never been challenged. While parents, children and siblings do not have identical DNA, they are usually close, so we'll take a look at the results for Prince William, since he the one most discussed as the presumed heir to the throne.<br />
<br />
Historical quirks like Hundred Years War and King Henry VIII mean that royal lineage has been documented very well. The late William Addams Reitwiesner, a well-known historian, has calculated Williams' ancestry as about 57 percent British and Irish, 39 percent French and German, 3 percent Eastern European, 1 percent Scandinavian, less than 1 percent South Asian (During the British colonization of India, Diana's great-great-great-great grandfather had a child with an Indian woman), and less than 1 percent... Middle Eastern! But before you get all excited, that Middle Eastern DNA is Armenian and comes from the maternal side, not the paternal side, which, in this case, are the genes that would correspond with the "throne of David" claim.<br />
<br />
Now let's get a little more specific. While William's DNA test has never been released to the public, that of his father's patrilineal cousin has. While that may not sound like a big deal, among royals, it is. Here's why: some geneticists actually consider "royal" to be a specific ethnic subset in Europe because of the shared languages, culture and genetics. Until very recently, the only acceptable marriage partner for a royal was another royal. Because of all the intermarrying between cousins to maintain thrones across Europe, the genetics of the "royal" class are both painstakingly documented and relatively stable since the time of Charlemagne. In this case, the cousin who was tested was Nicholas II, the last emperor of Russia. His body was tested after being found in the mass grave his family was thrown into after the Russian Revolution. The genetic results matched those from his blood-stained shirt kept in a museum in Osaka, Japan following an assassination attempt in the same city.<br />
<br />
Basically, when tracing patrilineal ancestry, scientists study the Y-chromosome to determine a person's haplogroup - those with whom they share a common ancestor. This is pretty solid science - Y-chromosomes have been demonstrated to stay relatively stable over thousands of years. And in this case, we not only have DNA samples from the family but also a list of pretty much everyone (of genetic significance) in the family for more than a thousand years.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y5fvISOBDyc/Wy8MSlJNYjI/AAAAAAAAAP8/p-ZlGAsCbXwf9-W3Qe8uU4H5aUwIR7ZAACLcBGAs/s1600/nicholas%2Bii.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="586" data-original-width="780" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Y5fvISOBDyc/Wy8MSlJNYjI/AAAAAAAAAP8/p-ZlGAsCbXwf9-W3Qe8uU4H5aUwIR7ZAACLcBGAs/s320/nicholas%2Bii.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nicholas II<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Nicholas II's Y-chromosome haplogroup was found to be R1b, which is not a surprise, because it's a pretty common DNA haplogroup in Europe. In case you care, the common patrilineal ancestor between Nicholas II and Prince Charles was Frederik I, King of Norway and Denmark from 1524-1533. Whose line is known from the time of Elimar I, the first count of Oldenberg, a Saxon who ruled in what's now northern Germany from 1101 to 1108 A.D. Anyway, short story long, no one has released William's DNA results, but thanks to the multiple tragedies that befell poor Nicholas, we know that there's roughly a 97.2 percent chance that William's haplogroup is also R1b.<br />
<br />
<br />
But we know this for sure: even if, somehow, William's DNA falls in that 2.8 percent margin of error, it's still in R haplogroup family. We have the man's <a href="http://www.wargs.com/essays/ethnic.html">genealogy traced</a> practically back to the 700's A.D., and it's pretty much a mix of British, Germanic, French, Scottish, Armenian, Scandanavian and one lady from India.<br />
<br />
So why do we care? Because, honestly, apart from what I'm about to say here,<b> I don't.<i> </i>It is difficult to overstate how little I care about the lineage of the British royals. <i>Except for this one point:</i></b><br />
<br />
Brits and Americans primarily belong to the R1b haplogroup - which, as I already stated, is the most common one in western Europe. You see many variations on that theme - an R1a, an R1b1a2-M (M indicates Eurasian lineage). But you know what you don't see, at least among those who claim to be British, Irish, French and Danish? You don't see a J, at least in most individuals who don't claim Jewish ancestry.<br />
<br />
Both Palestinian Jews and Arabs belong to the J haplogroup. This makes sense, since scripture specifically states that Jews and Arabs both descended from Abraham. Genetic research is able to trace a common father between Jews and Arabs even several generations before Jacob, the father of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.<br />
<br />
So if Brits descended from related Hebrew tribes, you would expect to see genetic markers for the J haplogroup on their Y chromosomes. You would especially expect to see these genetic markers in the royal gene pool; in those whose lineage is relatively documented,; whose genetics haven't changed all that much over the centuries; in those who are allegedly descendants of David and sit on the throne of David.<br />
<br />
But you don't. DNA evidence shows that R and J are two entirely different ethnic groups; groups who do not share a common ancestor. At least not, in all likelihood, until about the time of the Ark, which was at least 750 years before the birth of Abraham.<br />
<br />
So why don't you see those genetic markers? Maybe it's because British Israelism was not a divine revelation, but a lie peddled by a false prophet. Or even worse, a lie peddled by a <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-and-todays-churches.html">false prophet</a> who <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrongs-doctrines-and-fruit.html">plagiarized </a>the theory.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/herbert-w-armstrong-why-he-still-matters.html">Armstrong </a>taught over and over and over again that the claims made by British-Israelism were divinely revealed to him, and were the key to understanding Bible prophecy. Without this "vital key", he taught, no one could understand where Israel is today, and thus no one could understand how prophecy was going to play out. But British Israelism been <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2014/11/happy-thanksgiving-from-my-gentile.html">debunked</a>, over and over again. Is it any wonder that his prophecies failed, and that those who continue building on this foundation are crumbling?<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4LuZ6wJbycY/Wy8I0hzGIBI/AAAAAAAAAPI/aYoeb47paOkjI0zMRfXjWldRslPj-_l8QCLcBGAs/s1600/Simon.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="728" height="212" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4LuZ6wJbycY/Wy8I0hzGIBI/AAAAAAAAAPI/aYoeb47paOkjI0zMRfXjWldRslPj-_l8QCLcBGAs/s320/Simon.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Simon Abney-Hastings outside his home in Australia.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, should we be getting out our DNA kits and start looking for the true heir to David's throne? Perhaps it's <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/history/should-an-aussie-be-the-king-of-england.aspx">Simon Abney-Hastings</a>, an Australian textile worker who's the direct descendant of the royal Plantagenet line that lost power during the War of the Roses.<br />
<br />
No. We know which ancestor of David's currently reigns, and it's the best one possible. Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, sits on His throne today. Though different translations muddy the meaning, many believe that God told David he would always have descendants to sit on the throne - in distinction to Saul, whose line had been cut off and later died out due to his disobedience. Jesus was physically David's descendant, and we know He ascended to heaven and took His throne. As usual, Armstrong's doctrines distract and <a href="http://asbereansdid.blogspot.com/2016/03/cogwa-on-resurrection-church-of-now-what.html">detract </a>from Jesus Christ - the Way, the Truth and the Life. The author and finisher of our faith. The only means through which we can approach the Father. Our only hope. The Bible makes it clear that salvation only comes by grace through faith in the shed blood of Jesus, but Armstrong wove a tangled web of religious practices he claimed we must follow to remain in God's grace. Many in the splinters of the Worldwide Church of God are still caught in that web today.<br />
<br />
As for me, I care about as much about royal lineage as I did before I started this post. After all, Titus 3:9 tells us:<br />
<br />
<i>But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. </i><br />
<br />
Armstrong and those who keep his teachings alive must have missed that one. Makes you wonder what else they might have missed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<pre></pre>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
************<br />
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, <u>always prove it for yourself</u>, <u>it is <b>your</b> responsibility</u>. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )<br />
<strong>Acts 17:11</strong><br />
************</div>
Marthahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12438486498450616814noreply@blogger.com1