Profits for Prophets - its all about the money

The Cessation of Tongues...When?

Tongues Were to Cease When?

Yes dear readers, the above photo has been digitally remastered. This image is NOT a representation of any true biblical manifestation of glossalia, better known as "speaking in tongues."

Albeit, the idea of there being different languages on earth is an intriguing one. Depending on whether you think man "evolved" or was created, depending on whether you believe in the biblical account of the Tower of Babel, you may come up with a much different theory about the origin of different languages. However man originated, and whatever his history may have been, the fact of men speaking different languages has been a real problem. If you travel, you are quickly confronted with the need to know someone else's language, or need to find someone who knows your own. It can hardly be called a "blessing" that we speak a different language. It is an horrendous problem! We can hardly understand each other when we've been raised in the same family. Even though we use the same words across our country, we mean quite different things – "evening" meant from noon to midnight where I was raised; and "morning" meant from midnight till noon. When I got married to Aimee, and said we ought to do some thing "this evening". I had reference to sometime in the afternoon – my wife was thinking about a time after sundown. Silly but true, and illustrative of my point.

We are constantly admonishing people to "communicate", not to hold back their feelings; make others know how we feel, what troubles and what pleases us. That can be dangerous. One of our Hispanic brethren came up to me and said, "I need to talk with you. We have a problem about do-nuts". The way he pronounced "do-nuts" (are you to think "do-nuts" or "dough-nuts"?) I thought he was referring to one of the women in the congregation. I became all ears, ready to give wise counsel – and found out that the problem was he had been buying all the doughnuts for the fellowship snack after worship services out of his own pockets! Ah! The blessing of unknown tongues, dialects, regional pronunciations, and re-learning the sound values of letters when you learn English! Believe me, it can cause real problems! So, why would anyone wish to speak in an unknown tongue, when the Bible says God confounded the language of man as a punishment, to defeat the purposes of the builders of the tower of Babel, to scatter and divide man, instead of unifying him? (There is no instance in the Greek manuscript where "unknown" and "tongues" are used together. Where translations speak of "unknown tongues" the Greek manuscripts only say "tongues". The word "unknown" appears commonly in New Testament Greek, but never in connection with "tongues".)

Now, when it comes to the New Testament, and the account of the day of Pentecost, when the disciples spoke with "other tongues" it seems the Lord was dealing with the problem He had created for man. In order for the people to understand, God performed a miracle and caused the disciples to speak in languages that they had not learned. It was very impressive; it honoured God; and it made the hearers aware that God was working through these men.

Those men were Jews. Not long afterwards, some believers in other nations also miraculously spoke in languages they did not know. It is mentioned several times in the book of Acts, and Paul refers to it in writing to the Corinthians. Mark quotes Jesus as prophesying this would happen (Mark 16:17). Only Luke (the writer of Acts) and Paul refer to the tongues experience, and Mark predicted its occurrence.

Matthew does not mention it. Neither James, John, Jude, nor Peter refer to it. Paul wrote letters also to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, the Colossians; to Timothy, Titus, Philemon – and perhaps to the Hebrews. He never mentioned the phenomenon in any of his letters except in his first letter to the Corinthian church: not even in his second letter to Corinth. Why did he not mention the matter, if this was intended to be an ongoing experience in the Church, even to our times? Why does Paul speak of it only to the Corinthians? But the idea is intriguing. What if God were to provide us with the ability to go to a foreign country without training and there be able miraculously to speak their language and preach the gospel to the people there? What an impact it would have on the listeners! My, how we could win people to Christ by the droves if we were only able miraculously to speak in other languages!

That is what some people think it was intended for. Those who have made themselves available to God to be used in such a fashion have usually been disappointed that the sounds they made were not understood by the natives to whom they spoke any more than they are understood by the rest of us when someone "speaks in tongues" among us.

Yes, I have heard of a person speaking in Spanish or French, and someone in the audience is reported to have understood their message, it having been intended for them personally. I do not know that to be true by personal witness. If it happened, I was not there. I have been present many times when people "spoke in tongues", but it has never sounded like a language to me; and on the few occasions when someone purported to be interpreting what was said, I had reason to feel very uneasy about the interpretation. Why? Because in the many times in many languages when I have had someone interpret for me, the interpreter almost always uses many more words and phrases to give the correct meaning than the number of words I have spoken. Not so the interpretation of "unknown tongues" in a Pentecostal meeting – those I have attended. The interpretation is usually much shorter. Does God need more words to give the same meaning than man needs to repeat it to man? I don't think so!

Further, seldom is anything profound said in the interpretation. Usually something safe, like, "The Lord says He wishes you to have good health, and that He will bless you if you obey Him".
All the experiences I have had with the "tongues" movement have caused me to feel very ill at ease with the motivation and the source of what I hear. You may wish to keep that in mind as you read what I have to say about 1Corinthians 13:8. I admit I am negatively biased on the subject.

As a result of my experiences, I searched carefully to determine from the Scriptures whether God intended for the tongues experience to continue into our times. Two Scriptures seem pertinent. The first is the prophecy given in Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow the believers: In My name they shall expel demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall pick up serpents, and if they drink anything fatal it shall not injure them in the least. They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall become well" (Berkeley Version). Some Bibles have a note after Mark 16:9-20 indicating these verses are not in the best two manuscripts. This makes me wary of conclusions drawn from the passage.

Let's suppose the passage is legitimate. It seems odd to me that so much is made of the tongues aspect of this prophecy, if it means to say that believers everywhere throughout the time from Christ's ascension until His return should, could, or would have the tongues experience.
What about picking up serpents? Some groups practice that too, occasionally with fatal results. Like Pharaoh's magicians, non-believers do that also. But why do Pentecostals not emphasise this as much as tongues? Or drinking fatal poisons – why are Christians much more willing to speak in tongues than to pick up serpents and drink fatal poisons? Is it because it's easier to counterfeit speaking in tongues, to counterfeit casting out demons, and even to counterfeit healings? If I were a person blessed with the miracle of speaking in tongues, should I fear drinking poisons?

Perhaps I should fear counterfeiting speaking in tongues more than I fear drinking poisons. How appropriate, how safe, how righteous is it to counterfeit speaking for and in the name of God, that He has given the message one claims erroneously to have received from God?
Consider that Mark 16:17-18 does not suggest the topic is accidentally picking up serpents, like Paul's experience; it does not suggest accidental drinking of poison – it just says, "If they drink anything fatal it shall not injure them in the least". Why ought not a Christian to proceed without qualms to drink poison furnished by a non-believer to exhibit the miraculous power of God, and the continuing presence of God?

Understand, I have no doubt whatever about God's having done those things through people in the age of the apostles. I also have no doubt about God's being able to do it in our age. I also have no doubt whatever that there are multitudes of Christians who, like myself, have prayed to God frequently that He would bless us with the experience of speaking in tongues if it is His will for us, and for our times.

One other cause of my doubts regarding the continuing intention of God to use the miracle of speaking in tongues in our times again has to do with the interpretation of tongues. Not once have I ever heard a person volunteer to translate for a foreign brother who was scheduled to preach for us and needed a translator, when the prospective volunteer to translate did not know the language of the person who was to speak. Why not? If the modern miraculous "interpreter of tongues" can really interpret, why do they never volunteer to interpret languages they don't know such as French, Russian or German into English? Why do modern speakers in tongues usually speak in unknown tongues to others who speak their own language? What is the purpose for a person who understands English to speak in an unknown tongue to others who understand English?

1Corinthians 14:13 says, "For this reason the man who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says". And, in the 27th verse: "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two – or at the most three – should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret". Where in modern the charismatic movement has this clear biblical imperative been followed??!!! If they don't adhere to the plain instruction of the Scriptures that they claim to represent --> FLEE!

Frankly, I have no confidence whatever in the interpretations given by a person who is willing only to interpret "angelic" tongues and not be willing to interpret a language of man which he does not know.

In interpreting "languages of angels", no man knows whether the interpretation is right or not right – even the person who "interprets" doesn't even know whether he is interpreting correctly or not! He has no way to verify that he interprets correctly or doesn't.

1Corinthians 13:1 mentions both "tongues of men" and "tongues of angels". Unless an interpreter, for example one who does not know Spanish, is just as willing to interpret for one of our Spanish brethren who wishes to deliver a message to an English congregation, and interpret in the presence of those who know both Spanish and English, then I have no reason to believe he is correctly interpreting "tongues of angels".

This is not a foolish challenge. The person who can demonstrate this can easily persuade us that he is indeed giving interpretations correctly to angelic tongues also.

Mark 16:17-18, sounds as though the experience would be common among believers, along with the other miracles. What other Scripture bears on the subject? What about 1Corinthians 13:8? It reads (NIV): "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away". Tongues will be "stilled" – meaning what? meaning when?

I find this translation to be like the sports commentator who reports that one team "sank" another team; the next team, one "rolled over" the other team; and a third game, one team "walked on" the other team – fishing for some way to vary the speech pattern. It gets monotonous to just say that "this team won", "that team won", and "the other team won" for game after game. That's fine in sportscasting, but it doesn't make for good interpretation of the Bible.

The Berkeley Version is just as purposeless and unfaithful: "Love never fades out. As for prophesyings, they shall be rendered useless; as for tongues, they shall cease; as for knowledge, it shall lose its meaning".

Some more examples:

"Love is eternal. There are inspired messages, but they are temporary; there are gifts of speaking, but they will cease; there is knowledge, but it will pass" (Good News Bible)

"Love will never come to an end. Are there prophecies? their work will be over. Are there tongues of ecstasy? they will cease. Is there knowledge? it will vanish away" (New English Bible).

But what did the Greek manuscript say? The most nearly accurate translation of this passage I have found is the American Standard Version: "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away".

The Greek word for both the actions on prophecy and knowledge is the very same Greek word, and there is no excuse for a different translation of the two. The meaning of these statements seems quite clear:

The miracle of the giving of prophecies will be discontinued by the action of God who provided the information for the prophecy. It is obvious that knowledge not obtained miraculously continues to be gained; neither is it further obtained miraculously. It neither has been nor shall be done away. It is the obtaining of knowledge miraculously which has been discontinued.
Likewise, prophecies already given are not wiped from the slate – they continue to provide a mighty testimony to the foreknowledge of God and His verification of the work of His servants through whom they were given.

But about tongues? "They will cease" – just stop. When? The Bible does not say. Why? The Bible does not say. So what are we left with? We are left with the need for our brethren who believe they are miraculously speaking in a genuine tongue (either of angels or of men), to be willing to

submit to verifiable tests:

Allow the tape-recording of tongues spoken during a meeting.
Give the recording to many different people who have the "gift" of interpretation. Their interpretations must be consistent and not leave out essential parts after repeated playing.
Do this with many different speakers, and many different interpreters. Let God be true – He is true. Are we true? God invites proof of what He prophesies.

Let the interpreters also interpret a sermon from a modern language of man they do not know, and his interpretation be corroborated by those who know both languages.
When did tongues cease? At the point where men were no longer able or willing to verify their interpretations, at the point where they began speaking in assemblies without interpreters, at the point where the other miracles were no longer common among true Christians, at the point where they refused to allow others to interpret and wished only to do it themselves.

Garry Wills - Head And Heart - American Christianities Lecture

Hitler / Christ: Charlie Chaplin ->Democracy falls short of the Gospel

Paul Aldrich - Modern Church Historical

Kevin's Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

My friend Kevin sent me an email a few days ago that I really wanted to include here but didn't quite know when to place it. Since today's topic deals with Church history (did I mention Kevin is an historian?) today seemed like a perfect match.

My reply detailed how "on target" his Letterman-esque analysis is; seeing the proverbial emperor's new suit for what it isn't strikes at the heart of the mission of Restoration Herald.

The sad fact is that we have all been sent a "strong delusion." None of us have all the truth. We all "see through a glass darkly" but one day, "we will be known as we are known." I pray for the soon arrival of that day!That glorious day of apokatastasis, the restoration of all things.

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Modern Fundamentalism; Not Modern and NOT Fundamental

Modern Christian Fundamentalism; Not Modern and NOT Fundamental

Truth is more engaging than a Dan Brown novel

Most of modern Christianity assumes that what it believes and practises was what was taught by Christ and the apostles. Few people realise that the religion they practice is actually nothing like the faith that was taught and practiced by Jesus Christ and the apostles or the early church.

Many Protestant churches deny the authority of the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church and yet are totally dependent upon the Councils of the church for the doctrines they hold.

Most so-called Modern Fundamentalist Christians believe that they hold a body of doctrine that is derived from Scripture alone and that this doctrine called sola Scriptura by the Reformation Protestants, such as Calvin and Martin Luther, is the basis of their belief.

What they do not realise is that the Reformation did not go back to the Bible and Scripture alone. It failed in its objectives and did not go beyond Augustine and the Councils of the fourth century. So-called Modern Christian Fundamentalism is totally dependent upon the Councils of the church for the validity of its doctrine. Most do not even know what the history of the church is and what took place from the time of Christ and the apostles up until the formation of the so-called orthodox Christian position as determined by the Councils of the fourth century.

There are some major false assumptions made by these so-called fundamentalists. Our task is to present a simple overview of the problem and show that fundamentalism is anything but that and is totally dependent upon the Councils of the church under the authority of the Roman empire.


False Assumption 1: The Trinity

Most people assume that the Trinity is found in the Bible. It is not found there. Both Catholic and Protestant theologians agree that the Bible and the logical belief system which is called rational theism are Unitarian. That is, they do not have three personalities vested in God.

Bishop Shelby Spong in his book Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism said simply: Paul was not a Trinitarian. None of the apostles were Trinitarian.

No official of any of the major churches believes or argues that Christ and the apostles were Trinitarian. They acknowledge that the Triune god was grafted onto the God of the Bible (see, for example, LaCugna God For Us). How then do the fundamentalists deal with this fact? They simply ignore the history and use Scripture selectively.

The truth is that the view that Christ was God in the same co-equal and co-eternal way as the Father was God was not accepted in the church until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and then under duress of the Roman emperor.

This was three hundred years after the ministry of Christ. They had to use armed force to achieve it.

The Holy Spirit was not defined as a person and a third part of the Godhead until the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE.

The full doctrinal position was not agreed until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE.
Even then, there was not agreement as to the way in which it operated. The Catholics would later claim (from the Council of Toledo) that it proceeded from the Father and the Son, and the Orthodox would disagree saying it proceeded from the Father only.

How then did we get to this extraordinary state of affairs where the God decided on in the fourth century was not the God of the early church? What other important changes took place that we do not know about? The answer is that there were a multitude of changes. These changes involved the changes from Sabbath to Sunday worship and from keeping the Passover to keeping the pagan festival of Easter. The pagan festival which we now call Christmas had not even then been adopted by the church.

Fundamentalists try to argue that Sunday worship was kept by the early Church – but all scholars know that this is not true. It is a lie or, more correctly, a self-delusion of the people who say they are fundamentalists. They say they only do what the Bible says and so they have to try to find some basis in the Bible for the things they do – such as going to church on Sundays.

How did it all start?

False Assumption 2: Sunday worship

The early church came under attack from a number of religions. The chief enemy of the church was a religion called Gnosticism – this name comes from the Greek word gnosis meaning knowledge. These people thought they had a secret knowledge which they labelled as Mysteries, and they derived much of their views from the Mystery cults. These cults invaded other religions and took over the beliefs but adapted themselves to the system.

Some of the Mystery cults, especially in a country called Phrygia in Asia-Minor, spoke in what is now called tongues. No one could understand what they said, but they pretended that it was some important message from the higher powers. They later argued that this was done by the apostles at Pentecost. That was not so. The apostles spoke in other languages that could be understood, but the Gnostics claimed they did not and the practice is now in what is called Charismatic churches. These churches also claim to be fundamentalist. The practice called speaking in tongues came from the early Gnostics.

These Gnostics undermined the church from within. Their biggest success was in Rome. They did not come from there originally but they went there as it was the centre of power in the Roman Empire.

In Rome, from about 140-152 CE, they began to worship on Sundays. It was not done anywhere in the church until then and the first record we have of the practice is with Justin Martyr writing about 140 CE, but in his Dialogue with Trypho he says they also worshipped on the Sabbath.

False Assumption 3: Easter

From about 152 CE under the bishop Anicetus, the Romans started to worship on Easter Sunday. Up until that time, the church kept the Passover which would fall on any day of the week. It was determined by the early Hebrew calendar which was determined by the moon and the sun and not just the sun alone, as came to be adopted by the Romans from the Egyptian system.

This change caused a lot of problems and many people would not adopt it. Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John, argued with this bishop of Rome and refused to change the practice of the early Church. He and the churches in the east refused to keep this pagan festival called Easter named after the goddess Easter or Ishtar with a Friday death and Sunday resurrection. This Easter festival was also derived from the Mystery cults. These cults were based on sun worship and, hence, they kept Sunday.

Up until that time, it was never thought that Jesus Christ was crucified on a Friday. The accepted time was a Wednesday, but the early church writers and the calendars had the date of 25 March for the Hebrew date of 14 Nisan – the correct date of Christ’s death according to the Hebrew calendar. The only time this fell on 14 Nisan around the death of Christ was on a Sunday in 31 CE.

So Easter not only depends upon the later Councils of the church but also it is pagan in origin and was not the time when Christ was crucified. Again, the fundamentalists have it wrong and depend upon the Gnostics in Rome for their authority.

This problem continued more or less continuously up until 190 CE. It was called the quarto-deciman dispute and was called that because quarto-deciman means 14th which was the date on the Hebrew calendar on which the Passover lamb was to be killed. Christ was killed as our Passover lamb on that day.

From 190 CE, they began to punish people for not keeping Easter and keeping the old Passover that the apostles had kept. This Passover went from 14 Nisan up until the Sunday of the week which was known as the Wave-sheaf Offering when Christ was understood to have ascended into heaven to the Father after his resurrection and before he appeared to the apostles as the risen Christ later that Sunday afternoon.

False Assumption 4: The law was done away by another true God who was Christ

The disputes went on and on with the Roman system always coming up with some new idea derived from the influence of these Gnostics. They first decided that they wanted to eliminate the laws of the Bible. These were all in the Scriptures which we now call the Old Testament. The New Testament was the writings of the apostles recording the sayings of Christ and the letters they wrote concerning the disputes in the church. Many of these disputes were caused by these Gnostics. These letters of the apostles were written to show how the Scriptures were to be interpreted.

In order to eliminate the laws of the Bible which the Gnostics hated, they had to produce the idea that the law of God was changed by another God equal to the first God who they called the God of the Jews. Initially, the Gnostics tried to say he was a bad God but that would not work. Their followers in Christianity then said that the God was the same God who simply appeared as Father and then as son and then as Holy Spirit but they were all only one God. This was called Modalism. This idea was altered later and ultimately became the Trinity.

The Modalists in Rome did not have full power and were opposed from other sources.
The idea, however, was logically necessary to remove the law of God and, so, Christ had to be made equal to God. To do that they had to claim first that he had always existed beside or with God and was not a product of the Father as any other son would be and as the other sons of God were products of the Father. They tried to say that the other sons of God were not really sons but creations that were different to Christ and he was not a product of the Father in the same way. This became the Roman view, which came to be established at Nicaea in 325 CE.

False Assumption 5: The immortal soul and life in heaven

The Gnostics also held a belief in an immortal soul. This was not adopted by the Christians. The Gnostics held that when you die you go to heaven. This was absolutely rejected by the Christians and they regarded anyone who said that when they died they would go to heaven as being a false Christian. It was a test of the true Christian and the Gnostic so-called Christian. If you said that when you die, then you, as an immortal soul, went to heaven you showed that you were influenced by Greek philosophy or you were a Gnostic and not a Christian. This problem is recorded by the early Christian writers Tatian and Justin Martyr. The fundamentalists today who claim an immortal soul and existence in heaven (or in Hell) on death are dependent upon Greek philosophy and Roman theology for the doctrine. It is not in the Bible.

The family of Christ

Up until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, the Church had been persecuted by the Jews. James the brother of Jesus Christ was bishop of Jerusalem until he was martyred in 63 CE. He was replaced by the nephew of Christ named Symeon who was the son of Cleophas and Mary the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ. They are mentioned in John 19:25.
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. (KJV)

Mary’s sister was also called Mary according to the English translations. However, the truth is that the mother of Christ was called Mariam and her sister was called Maria (see Greek Interlinerars). Both words are derivatives of the original Hebrew Miriam. The name of Christ’s mother was not Mary or Maria – that was the name of her sister. She was called Mariam. The boys of the family also had the same names (with variations) and their offspring carried these names. Christ’s brothers were called James, Joses, Simon and Judas (Matt. 13:55). Judas was also called Jude and was the son of Joseph and brother of Christ but referred to himself as the brother of James (cf. Cassiodorus, ANF, Vol. II, p. 573) and as a servant of the Lord. His cousins were called Little James and Joses and Symeon and Judas. From this, we see the confusion with the two families. However, the record is clear that Mary or, more correctly, Mariam the mother of Jesus had other children and these and the sons of her sister and her cousin Elizabeth made up the family of Messiah. This third branch was descended from the brothers of John the Baptist. They were all called Desposyni or Belonging to the Lord.

After James the Just was killed in Jerusalem, his cousin Symeon and the younger cousin of Jesus Christ became bishop of Jerusalem. He took the church to Pella over the period which saw the destruction and occupation of Jerusalem and returned in 72 CE with the church. They remained there until the rebellion under bar Kochba. Jews were banned from Jerusalem in 135 CE by Emperor Hadrian. That also meant that the church at Jerusalem could no longer be the centre for the collection of moneys called the tithe of the tithe as had been done up until then. The family of Christ were the elders of the church for these first few centuries. They held offices as bishops in Alexandria and Antioch as well as Jerusalem and throughout Asia-Minor. During all this time, they kept the law and the Sabbath and the New Moons and the Holy Days. They kept the food laws and they tithed. They kept the church together. They and the disciples of the apostles of the other nations ran the church in the same way that Messiah had instructed them and according to the laws of God as laid down in the Bible.

The persecution of the family of Christ and the true church by the Roman system under Gnostic influence

The Roman church had come to be wealthy under patronage. When Constantine tried to establish the Christian system in order to use it, he gave the edict of Toleration at Milan circa 314 CE. After this, the Christians became influential. In 318 CE, the emperor paid for the travel of the family of Christ to Rome to confer with bishop Sylvester at the Lateran Palace. He was, by this time, a very wealthy person living like a prince. The party of the family of Christ came by ship to the port of Ostia and then they went by donkey to Rome. They were dressed in woollen homespun garments and leather hats and boots. They spoke Aramaic and Greek. Bishop Sylvester spoke only Latin and Greek so the conversation was carried on in Greek. It seems likely that Simon was their spokesman. See: Malachi Martin The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, pp. 42 ff.

They expressed their concern that the laws of God had been removed as the basis of the church. They wanted the Sabbath reinstated. It had been made inferior to Sunday from the Council of Elvira in 300 CE. They argued for the Torah, which was the Hebrew name given to the law of God, to be reinstated to its correct position. That included the Holy Days and food laws. They asked that the Greek bishops put into Alexandria and Antioch and elsewhere be replaced by the family of Christ. They asked also that Jerusalem again be made the centre of the faith and the money for the church be able to be sent there.

They went home. Instead of using his influence with Constantine to reform the church of these Gnostic influences and restore it to the true faith once delivered to the saints, as the brother of Christ wrote (Jude 3), Sylvester set about destroying the faith and the family of Christ with it.
Events were then set in train which would see the church make Christ a true God. This was called Binitarianism and it happened from the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The bishops who did not agree were banished. However, after a little while Constantine realised that the church was not all in agreement with these people in Rome. He recalled the bishops from exile in 327 CE and replaced them as the heads of the church. The Binitarian doctrine of the Gnostic heretics was stopped. Constantine was not made a Christian until he was baptised by Eusebius of Nicomedia on his death-bed. He was, in fact, a sun worshipper and that is why he encouraged the Christians originally as he thought they, too, had the same beliefs. He did not realise they had inherited them from the Gnostics and the Mystery cults and that it was not true Christianity.

The Roman pagan religious system tried to reassert itself under Emperor Julian but he was not successful. In 366 CE, at the Council of Laodicea, the Sabbath was outlawed and Sunday worship was officially enforced. Easter had been declared earlier from Nicaea. The true Passover of the original Church was not supposed to be practiced. The eastern church ignored the rulings.
In 381 CE, the Spanish born Emperor Theodosius was made emperor by Emperor Gratian. He was the first baptised Athanasian emperor of the Roman system. Theodosius threw his weight behind Athanasius and another three priests who were from Cappadocia named Basil and the two Gregorys. One was Gregory of Nyssa and the other was Gregory of Nazianzus. These people developed the belief in the two Gods of Father and Son into three persons in the Godhead as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This became the Trinity, which by 451 CE when the Council of Chalcedon was held, was the official doctrine of the church ruling from Rome and Constantinople. This became known as the Orthodox or Catholic Church. Up until that time, the term catholic had meant universal. When the eastern church split with the western church they were called Orthodox and Catholic churches.

From the fourth century, the Roman church system with the help of the army then began systematically exterminating the family of Jesus Christ. They hunted and killed them by the sword. They removed their lands and forced them into zero population growth. By the fifth century, they were all but exterminated within the empire.

The Jews then also came into the picture by changing their calendar to a system quite different to the original Hebrew calendar based on a Babylonian model. This was done in 358 CE. It then became very difficult for the faith to make headway against this false system established under Gnostic influence. Indeed, the Gnostics had penetrated Judaism, Paganism and Christianity.
This so-called Orthodox Church came into England in 597 CE with Augustine of Canterbury and the Angles were converted at Kent. From that time, the British Church which was also Sabbath-keeping and kept the food laws and other aspects of the law of God was forced to change and adopt these non-biblical practices which emanated from Gnosticism. This change was forced from 663 CE at the synod of Whitby.

As we can see, the so-called fundamentalism of modern churches is not in accordance with the Bible as is claimed. Fundamentalism is not biblical literalism. It is dependent upon the Councils of the church for its basic doctrines which do not appear in the Bible. The doctrines are derived from ancient sources within Gnosticism and the Mystery cults involving sun-worship. Our modern christian fundamentalists also continue to share in this striking similarity with their ancestors; the use of politics and military power to achieve their ends. The old addage remains true, the apple doesn't fall far from its tree.

_________________

Bibliography:
Christian Churches of God
PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA
Copyright 1997 Wade Cox

Early Theology of the Godhead (Edition 2.0 19950722-1998093) Copyright 1995, 1999 Wade Cox

John Shelby Spong: Rescuing The Bible From Fundamentalism, Publisher: HarperOne (April 10, 1992) ISBN-10: 0060675187 ; ISBN-13: 978-0060675189

Fr. Malachi Martin: The Decline and Fall of The Roman Church, Publisher: Putnam (1981)
ASIN: B000QYGD9W

Did Paul Do Away With The Law?

Over the past two weeks, I have been researching whether or not the Ten Commandments have been done away. This was initiated by a conversation that centered around why christians celebrate on Sunday. The clear biblical position is that the Sabbath is the seventh day (Saturday) not the first day of the week (Sunday).

Biblically sanctioned Holy Days such as the Feast of Tabernacles, Pentecost, Trumpets &c., have also gotten short-shrift throughout the years. The reasons for this have been well documented by the ecclesical powers that be. Common thought is that the ceremonial laws were done away or "nailed to the cross." Well and good...but... no one is bold enough to claim that the ten commandments were nailed to the cross, yet only nine of them are being kept - and these nominally in most cases by christendom. The question remains, why don't the churches (by and large) keep Sabbath on Saturday or honor the ancient feasts/fasts that were given as examples "throughout your generations"?

Paul, the famed apostle to the gentiles is often credited with diminishing the Law to a simple maxim: "Love is the fulfillment of the law." This makes for a nice platitude but it cheapens considerably the gospel message. What did Paul really teach? How did he live out his faith?

How did Jesus' original followers understand our Master's words to "keep my commandments"?

The article below answers these questions. Dr. Robert J.Thiel delivers a balanced and thorough examination of our subject. You will find it presented in its entirety with grateful appreciation to the author.

What Did Paul Actually Teach About the Ten Commandments?
By Dr. Robert J. Thiel

Most people familiar with the Bible understand that Jesus taught and observed all of the ten commandments. Some, though, try to ignore Jesus' teachings on the ten commandments by saying that Paul said they were "nailed to the cross". Is that what the Bible teaches? This article will quote what Paul actually taught about the ten commandments.

There is only one only scripture that uses the "nailed it to the cross" expression (AV/NKJ), it is Col 2:13-14, in which Paul states, "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross". Were the ten commandments the "requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us"? Let us examine the scriptures to see.

Commandment 1:

Paul said, "God, who made the world and everything in it...they should seek the Lord" (Acts 17:24,27). Paul also said, "I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law" (Acts 24:14). "But then indeed, when you did not know God, you served those things which by nature are not God" (Gal 4:8). "And what agreement has the temple of God have with idols?" (II Cor 6:16). "you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I The 1:9). "Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 The 2:3-4).

Commandment 2:

"we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols" (Acts 15:20). "Now while Paul waited for them in Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols...Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said...'God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything'" (Acts 17:16,22,24-25). "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four footed animals and creeping things" (Rom 1:22-23). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...an idolater" (I Cor 5:11). "Neither... idolators...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:9-10). "And do not become idolaters as were some of them...Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry" (I Cor 10:7,14). "And what agreement has the temple of God have with idols?" (II Cor 6:16). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...idolatry" (Gal 5:19,20). "For this you know that no...idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "Therefore put to death...covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). "you turned to God from idols" (I The 1:9).

Commandment 3:

"they are all under sin...Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness" (Rom 3:9,14). "Let all...evil speaking be put away from you" (Eph 4:31). "But now you yourselves are to put off all these:...blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth" (Col 3:8). "they may learn not to blaspheme" (I Tim 1:20). But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...blasphemers" (II Tim 3:1,2).

Commandment 4:

"Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures...And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks" (Acts 17:2;18:4 see also 13:14,27,42,44). "let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give to him who has need" (Eph 4:28) and "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: 'If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat'" (II Thes 3:10); (recall that the requirement to work is also part of the Sabbath command, thus even that portion of the commandment is repeated in the New Testament.) "And to whom did He swear they would not enter His rest, but to those who did not obey?" (Heb 3:18). "For He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works'" (Heb 4:4). "There remains therefore a rest (literally sabbatismos, 'Sabbath rest') for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Heb 4:9-10).

Commandment 5:

"being filled with all unrighteousness...disobediant to parents" (Rom 1:29,30). "Children obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother', which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth" (Eph 6:1-3). "the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience" (Col 3:6). "Children obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord" (Col 3:20). "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...disobediant to parents" (II Tim 3:1,2).

Commandment 6:

"being filled with all unrighteousness...murder" (Rom 1:29). "You shall not murder" (Rom 13:9). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...murders" (Gal 5:19,21). "the lawless and insubordinate...murders...manslayers" (I Tim 1:9).

Commandment 7:

"being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality" (Rom 1:29). "So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress" (Rom 7:3). "You shall not commit adultery" (Rom 13:9). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral" (I Cor 5:11). "Neither... adulterers, nor homosexuals...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:9-10)."Nor let us commit sexual immorality as some of them did" (I Cor 10:8). "Now the works of the flesh are evident...adultery, fornication" (Gal 5:19). "For this you know that no fornicator...has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "the lawless and insubordinate...fornicators...sodomites" (I Tim 1:9,10). "fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (Heb 13:4).

Commandment 8:

"You shall not steal" (Rom 13:9). "nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:10). "I have been...in perils of robbers" (II Cor 11:25-26). "Let him who stole, steal no longer" (Eph 4:28).

Commandment 9:

"You shall not bear false witness" (Rom 13:9). 'I do not lie" (Gal 1:19). "Therefore, putting away lying, 'Let each of you speak truth with his neighbor" (Eph 4:25). "Do not lie to one another" (Col 3:9). "the lawless and insubordinate...liars...perjurers" (I Tim 1:9,10). "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy" (I Tim 4:1-2). "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be...slanderers" (II Tim 3:1,3). "God, who cannot lie" (Ti 1:2). "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18).

Commandment 10:

"being filled with all unrighteousness...covetousness" (Rom 1:29)."You shall not covet" (Rom 7:7). "You shall not covet" (Rom 13:9). "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is...covetous" (I Cor 5:11). "nor covetous...will inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor 6:10). "we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted" (I Cor 10:6). "you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Gal 5:16). "For this you know that no fornicator...nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Eph 5:5). "Therefore put to death...covetousness, which is idolatry" (Col 3:5). "For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak for covetousness" (I The 2:5). "Let your conduct be without covetousness; be content with such things as you have" (Heb 13:5).

"Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city" (Rev 22:14). Since "those who do His commandments...have the right to enter...the city" (Rev 22:14), the ten commandments could not be "contrary to us". So then, if the ten commandments were not "nailed to the cross", what was? What does the Bible say? "having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" (Col 2:14). It was the handwriting of requirements. Which requirements were wiped out? It appears that two things were wiped out. One would be the requirements of the Levitical priesthood (Heb 9:1,6-10). And why? "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins...By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all" (Heb 10:4,10). The other (which is related) would be the death penalty, as "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). It is of interest to note that the expression "the handwriting of requirements" is a Greek legal term that signifies the penalty which a lawbreaker had to pay--through Jesus the penalty was wiped out ("the handwriting of requirements"), not the law! "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them" (Heb 10:16).

Some will argue that you still cannot keep the ten commandments (for "all have sinned"), even if they are all mentioned as being in effect after the crucifixion. Does this mean one should not try? The ten commandments are to be kept since Paul taught that Christians should still keep every one of them (as did the other New Testament writers, for those scriptures, please see the article.

Paul's Other Writings

Paul wrote "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins" (Heb 10:26). He also warned that those who break various of the ten commandments will not inherit the kingdom of God (Eph 5:4-5) and then said, "Let no man deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them" (Eph 5:6-7).

Some have been confused about some of Paul's writings, but as Peter warned, "Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures" (II Pet 3:15-16). Perhaps the most confusing to some is, "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle the wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity" (Eph 2:14-16). It is clear that Paul could not be talking about the ten commandments as he mentions parts of at least eight of them as still being in existence in the same book (see above, the other two are alluded to as well, Eph 5:31--anger, which is like murder according to Jesus; plus the comment about being a prisoner of the Lord also would show the first commandment, Eph 4:1). It needs to be remembered is that the wall of separation that was broken down the middle, was the large veil in the temple that split when Jesus died (Mat 27:50:51). Thus it was the ordinances of the Levitical priesthood which were abolished. This is what Paul also wrote elsewhere (Heb 9:1,6-10).

The entire book of Galations is confusing to many. Suffice it to say that at least six of the commandments are mentioned in that book, and for violating some of them Paul wrote, "those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal 5:21). Paul is telling people that they cannot earn their salvation through works (Gal 5:4-5) which of course is true. He never tells anyone to violate any commandment (not in Galations nor any other book) and reminds people that they will reap what they sow (Gal 6:7). Actually, he commended Christians who obey (Phil 2:12).

Paul himself said, after his conversion to the leaders of the Jews, "Men and brethren, though I have done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans" (Acts 28:17). If Paul had intentionally violated any of the ten commandments (or advocated this of others) he could not have said this. Look also at this, "On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present...And they said to him,"...Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law" "(Acts 21:18,20,24)--if Paul did not keep the law he should have refused this request, instead he followed it (vs. 26). Paul also said, "Therefore I urge you, imitate me" (I Cor 4:16) and "Imitate me, just as I imitate Christ" (I Cor 11:1); Jesus, as we saw earlier, both kept and taught observance of the ten commandments.

Paul wrote, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin...I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet'...Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Rom 3:20;7:7,12). Paul taught each of the ten commandments after the crucifixion (please see the commandments quoted after the crucifixion). Regarding faith and the law, Paul specifically wrote, "Do we make the void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary we establish the law" (Rom 3:31). Even after his conversion Paul state that he was, "concerning righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Phi 3:6).

Paul warned, "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8); Jesus kept the ten commandments! He also warns that "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" (II The 2:7). Lawlessness is breaking the law. Why would Paul warn about lawlessness if he felt all the law was done away?

In Conclusion

In conclusion, Paul taught that all ten of the commandments. He showed that they were all in effect after the crucifixion. He also specifically taught they were not done away (Rom 3:31). He warned against lawlessness (II The 2:7)! The opinions that state otherwise seem to be "traditions of men" which Jesus warned against (Mat 15:6). It is not interesting that commandment keepers are God's people in the last book of the Bible (i.e. Rev 12) and even in its last chapter (Rev 22:14)? Also, in the last book that Paul wrote before his death, he specifically warns against breaking the first, third, fifth, ninth, and tenth commandments (II Tim 3:1-7) as well as sin in general (v. 6). Therefore, it would not appear wise from a biblical standpoint to teach that Paul or the Bible teach that the ten commandments are not in effect.

Do Souls Go To Heaven At Death?

The celebrated Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: "No biblical text authorizes the statement that the soul is separated from the body at the moment of death" (Vol. 1, p. 802).

Christian Words and Christian Meanings, by John Burnaby (pp. 148, 149): "Greek philosophers had argued that the dissolution which we call death happens to nothing but bodies, and that the souls of men are by their native constitution immortal. The Greek word for immortality occurs only once in the New Testament, and there it belongs to none but the King of Kings…. The immortality of the soul is no part of the Christian creed, just as it is no part of Christian anthropology to divide soul and body and confine the real man, the essence of personality, to supposedly separable soul for which embodiment is imprisonment…. Jesus taught no doctrine of everlasting life for disembodied souls, such as no Jew loyal to the faith his fathers could have accepted or even understood. But Jewish belief was in the raising of the dead at the Last Day."

Why then do churches constantly say that disembodied souls have gone to heaven or hell?)

Companion Bible by E.W. Bullinger, on II Cor. 5:8: "It is little less than a crime for anyone to pick out certain words and frame them into a sentence, not only disregarding the scope and context, but ignoring the other words in the verse, and quote the words ‘absent from the body, present with the Lord’ with the view of dispensing with the hope of the Resurrection (which is the subject of the whole passage) as though it were unnecessary; and as though ‘present with the Lord’ is obtainable without it."

Law and Grace, by Professor A. F. Knight (p. 79): "In the Old Testament man is never considered to be a soul dwelling in a body, a soul that will one day be set free from the oppression of the body, at the death of that body, like a bird released from a cage. The Hebrews were not dualists in their understanding of God’s world."

Families at the Crossroads, by Rodney Clapp (pp. 95, 97): "Following Greek and medieval Christian thought, we often sharply separate the soul and body, and emphasize that the individual soul survives death. What’s more we tend to believe the disembodied soul has escaped to heaven, to a more pleasant and fully alive existence. We mistakenly envision the Christian hope as an individual affair, a matter of separate souls taking flight to heaven. But none of this was the case for the ancient Israelites."

Martin Luther: "I think that there is not a place in Scripture of more force for the dead who have fallen asleep, than Ecc. 9:5 ("the dead know nothing at all"), understanding nothing of our state and condition — against the invocation of saints and the fiction of Purgatory."

"Heaven in the Bible is nowhere the destination of the Dying." (J.A.T. Robinson, In the End God, p. 104

John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, Sermon on the Parable of Lazarus: "It is, indeed, very generally supposed that the souls of good men, as soon as they are discharged from the body, go directly to heaven; but this opinion has not the least foundation in the oracles of God. On the contrary our Lord says to Mary, after the resurrection, ‘Touch me not; for I have not yet ascended to my Father.’"

While the Jehovah’s Witnesses and others are labeled cultists because they say that the soul does not go to heaven when a person dies, the records of early church history are testimony to the fact that "orthodoxy" is the real culprit.

Did the early church teach the separation of a conscious soul from its body at the moment of death and its immediate departure to heaven? (I am not here discussing the condition of the soul as church fathers understood it, but the question of its immediate location at death.)

Here are the words of Irenaeus of the mid-second century (Against Heresies, Bk. 5): "Some who are reckoned among the orthodox go beyond the prearranged plan for the exaltation of the just, and are ignorant of the methods by which they are disciplined beforehand for incorruption. They thus entertain heretical opinions. For the heretics, not admitting the salvation of their flesh, affirm that immediately upon their death they shall pass above the heavens. [Note that it is the "heretics" who teach that the soul goes immediately to heaven at death. Today, according to present orthodoxy, it is the heretics who teach that souls do not go immediately to heaven or hell. This makes Irenaeus as well as John Wesley a heretic— see quotation above!]

Those persons, therefore, who reject a resurrection affecting the whole man, and do their best to remove it from the Christian scheme, know nothing as to the plan of resurrection. For they do not choose to understand that, if these things are as they say, the Lord Himself, in Whom they profess to believe, did not rise again on the third day, but immediately upon his expiring departed on high, leaving His body in the earth. But the facts are that for three days, the Lord dwelt in the place where the dead were, as Jonas remained three days and three nights in the whale’s belly (Matt. 12:40) . . . David says, when prophesying of Him: ‘Thou hast delivered my soul from the nethermost hell (grave).’ And on rising the third day, He said to Mary, ‘Touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father’ (John 20:17). . . . How then must not these men be put to confusion, who allege . . . that their inner man [soul], leaving the body here, ascends into the super-celestial place? [Irenaeus thus reckons today’s teaching as shameful!] For as the Lord ‘went away in the midst of the shadow of death’ (Ps. 86: 23), where the souls of the dead were, and afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up into heaven, it is obvious that the souls of His disciples also . . . shall go away into the invisible place [Hades]. . . and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event. Then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, bodily, just as the Lord rose, they shall come thus into the presence of God. As our Master did not at once take flight to heaven, but awaited the time of His resurrection . . . , so we ought also to await the time of our resurrection.

Inasmuch, therefore, as the opinions of certain orthodox persons are derived from heretical discourses, they are both ignorant of God’s dispensations, of the mystery of the resurrection of the just, and of the earthly KINGDOM which is the beginning of incorruption; by means of this KINGDOM those who shall be worthy are accustomed gradually to partake of the divine nature."

[Irenaeus thus condemns the whole "orthodox" tradition about what happens at death, the tradition, that is, which eventually swamped the biblical teaching, from the third century onwards.]

The protest of Justin Martyr against what later became orthodoxy, and remains so to this day, is no less incisive (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 80): "They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh. . . As in the case of a yoke of oxen, if one or other is loosed from the yoke, neither of them can plough alone; so neither can soul or body alone effect anything, if they be unyoked from their communion . . ." [i.e. the soul can have no separate, active existence]. For what is man but the reasonable animal composed of body and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No; but the soul of man. Would the body be called man? No; but it is called the body of man. If then neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, He has called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and body. . . Well, they say, the soul is incorruptible, being a part of God and inspired by Him. . . . Then what thanks are due to Him, and what manifestation of His power and goodness is it, if He purposed to save what is by nature saved. . . . but no thanks are due to one who saves what is his own; for this is to save himself. . . . How then did Christ raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body. . . . Why do we any longer endure those unbelieving arguments and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: That the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived. For this we used to hear from Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing beyond what we heard from Plato, did He bring us?"

[Justin thus implies that teaching an immediate survival of the soul in heaven or hell is Platonism not Christianity]

Justin is here refuting the arguments of Gnosticism which denied the resurrection of the flesh. Traditional Christianity has taken a similar, but slightly different tack by including in the creed a belief in the resurrection of the body, while also teaching an immediate salvation of the soul alone in a conscious, disembodied state. This is said to be the real person, albeit disembodied. Such an idea is flatly contradicted by Justin and Irenaeus and is identified by them as pagan.
Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho:

Trypho : "Do you really admit that this place Jerusalem shall be rebuilt? And do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the Patriarchs...?"

Justin: "I and many others are of that opinion, and believe that this will take place, as you are assuredly aware; but on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith think otherwise. Moreover I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical and foolish. . . . I choose to follow not men or men’s teachings, but God and the doctrines delivered by Him. For if you have fallen with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the truth of the resurrection . . . who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls when they die are taken to heaven, do not imagine that they are Christians . . . But I and others who are right-minded Christians on all points are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel, Isaiah and others declare. . . . We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The Day of the Lord,’ is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general and the eternal resurrection of all men would take place."

Justin’s statement on the Intermediate State (in full) (ca 150 AD):

"For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the Truth of the resurrection and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls when they die are taken to heaven: do not imagine that they are Christians; just as one, if he would rightly consider it would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of the Genistae, Meristae, Galilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews, but are only called Jews, worshipping God with the lips, as God declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 80, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Eerdmans, p. 239)
The Latin church father Tertullian (often known as the father of Western Christianity) is another who would disagree strongly with modern "orthodoxy" about what happens to the soul at death. He protested against the idea that the soul leaves the body at death and goes to heaven:

"Plato...dispatches at once to heaven such souls as he pleases.... To the question, whither the soul is withdrawn [at death] we now give the answer.... The Stoics place only their own souls, that is, the souls of the wise, in the mansions above. Plato, it is true, does not allow this destination to all the souls, indiscriminately, of even all the philosophers, but only those who have cultivated their philosophy out of love to boys...[homosexuals].. In this system, then, the souls of the wise are carried up on high into the ether.... All other souls they thrust down to Hades.

By ourselves the lower regions of Hades are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth, that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down. Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, "He died according to the Scriptures" (I Cor. 15:3) and "according to the same Scriptures was buried." With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. [Nothing is said in the Bible about Jesus altering the condition of the Patriarchs while he was in Hades] This being the case you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region and keep at arm’s length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions. These persons who are "servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master," would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham’s bosom. But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend thither. Well, then [they say], what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead? [But I say], How, indeed, shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father’s right hand, when as yet the archangel’s trumpet has not been heard by the command of God. When as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming, in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise? [I Thess 4:13ff.] To no one is heaven opened. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened...." (Treatise on the Soul, Ch. 55)

Another "Church Father," Hippolytus (ca 170-236), certainly did not think that souls were in heaven:

"But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained…. The righteous will obtain the incorruptible and unfading Kingdom, who indeed are at present detained in Hades, but not in the same place with the unrighteous…. Thus far, then, on the subject of Hades, in which the souls of all are detained until the time God has determined; and then He will accomplish a resurrection of all, not by transferring souls into other bodies, but by raising the bodies themselves" (Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe, 1, 2).

Modern scholars realize that the view of death which has prevailed (and is now promoted in church constantly) is not biblical. Far from it, it is, amazingly, actually "pagan" and "Gnostic." Moreover as the above quotations from the early apologists for Christianity show, the idea of going to heaven or hellfire immediately at death was a novel, heretical doctrine not taught by the church for some three hundred years after Christ. In a standard text of Christian Dogmatics we read:

"...the hellenization process by which Christianity adopted many Greek [pagan] thought patterns led in a different direction as the eschatological hope came to be expressed in Hellenistic categories. Irenaeus said: ‘It is manifest that the souls of His disciples also, upon whose account the Lord underwent these things, shall go away in the invisible place allotted to them by God. and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event. Then receiving their bodies and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come into the presence of God.’ Irenaeus’ statement contains the concept of an abode or purgatory in which the soul of the dead remains until the universal resurrection. We should not denounce this as a deviation from biblical teaching, since the point of the assertion is antignostic. Irenaeus wanted to reject the Gnostic idea that at the end of this earthly life the soul immediately ascends to its heavenly abode. As the early fathers fought the pagan idea that a part of the human person is simply immortal, it was important for them to assert that there is no rectilinear ascent to God. Once we die, life is over" (CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS, BRAATEN/JENSON, VOL. 2, p. 503, section written by Hans Schwartz, Professor of Protestant Theology, University of Regensburg, Federal Republic of Germany)

There is a further impressive protest against the popular idea that the dead survive as conscious "souls" in heaven. One might expect that such protest would initiate a wide-scale reform amongst the clergy. Alan Richardson writes in A Theological Word Book of the Bible (pp. 111, 112, emphasis added):

"The Bible writers, holding fast to the conviction that the created order owes its existence to the wisdom and love of God and is therefore essentially good, could not conceive of life after death as a disembodied existence [as millions of sincere believers are now taught in church to think of it!] ("we shall not be found naked" — II Cor. 5:3), but as a renewal under conditions of the intimate unity of body and soul which was human life as they knew it. Hence death was thought of as the death of the whole man, and such phrases as ‘freedom from death,’ imperishability or immortality could only properly be used to describe what is meant by the phrase eternal or living God ‘who only has immortality’ (I Tim. 6:16). Man does not possess within himself the quality of deathlessness, but must, if he is to overcome the destructive power of death, receive it as the gift of God who ‘raised Christ from the dead,’ and put death aside like a covering garment (I Cor. 15:53, 54). It is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that this possibility for man ((2 Tim. 1:10) has been brought to life and the hope confirmed that the corruption (Rom. 11:7) which is a universal feature of human life shall be effectively overcome."

The fundamental confusion about life after death which has so permeated traditional Christianity is brilliantly described by Dr. Paul Althaus in his book, The Theology of Martin Luther (Fortress Press, 1966, pp. 413, 414):

"The hope of the early church centered on the resurrection of the Last Day. It is this which first calls the dead into eternal life (I Cor. 15; Phil 3:21). This resurrection happens to the man and not only to the body. Paul speaks of the resurrection not ‘of the body’ but ‘of the dead.’ This understanding of the resurrection implicitly understands death as also affecting the whole man.... Thus [in traditional orthodoxy] the original Biblical concepts have been replaced by ideas from Hellenistic, Gnostic dualism. The New Testament idea of the resurrection which affects the whole man has had to give way to the immortality of the soul. The Last Day also loses its significance, for souls have received all that is decisively important long before this.

Eschatological tension is no longer strongly directed to the day of Jesus’ Coming. The difference between this and the Hope of the New Testament is very great."

That difference may be witnessed in contemporary preaching at funerals which, though claiming the Bible as its source, reflects a pagan Platonism which both the New Testament, the early Church Fathers and modern informed scholars reject.

Can belief in pagan ideas, promoted in the name of Jesus, result in a knowledge of Truth which leads to salvation? Is not this obvious paganism of Christianity a cause for alarm and a reason for returning to the Truth of the Bible?

Sabbath-keeping Among Early Believers

It can be shown, perhaps to the surprise of some who believe otherwise, that New Testament believers observed the Sabbath, though with a new meaning and in a new manner. While several significant proofs of this assertion lie within the Bible, much evidence lies in manuscripts external to the Bible.

SAUL AND THE SYNAGOGUE.

Prior to his conversion, Saul developed a fierce reputation as a suppressor of Christianity. After the martyrdom of Stephen, Paul went searching for Christians in the synagogues of Damascus "that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem" (Acts 9:1,2; 22:19). It is difficult to imagine why Saul would search Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath if most or all Christians were meeting for worship on the first day of week.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

Another indication of Sabbath-keeping is found in Christ's unique warning regarding the destruction of Jerusalem: "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath" (Matt 24:20). The fact that the Sabbath is here mentioned not polemically, but incidentally as a factor unfavorable to a flight of Christians from Jerusalem, implies on the one hand that Christ did not foresee its substitution with another day of worship, and on the other hand that, as stated by A. W. Argyle, "the Sabbath was still observed by Jewish Christians when Matthew wrote." (THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, Grand Rapids, 1963)

TEST FOR CHRISTIANS IN THE SYNAGOGUE.

It is impossible to determine for how long Christians continued to attend Sabbath services at the synagogue. We know that some of them still attended synagogue services by the end of the first century, because at that time rabbinical authorities introduced a test to detect their presence in the synagogue. The test consisted of a curse: "Shemoneh Esreh," that was incorporated in the daily prayer and was to be pronounced against the Christians by any participant in the synagogue service (Bacchiocchi, FROM SABBATH TO SUNDAY, pp. 157-159). *Four chapters available for reading online by clicking on the orange link above.*

The function of the curse was to bar the Christians' presence and/or participation in the synagogue services. So, obviously Christians still attended Sabbath services at the synagogues until at least the end of the first century.

THE NAZARENES.

A significant evidence of the practice of Sabbath-keeping among primitive Palestinian Christians is provided by the testimony of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 315-403), regarding the Jewish Christian sect of the Nazarenes. The Bishop, a native of Palestine, explains that the Nazarenes were the direct descendants of the Christian community of Jerusalem which migrated to Pella prior to the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem (Epiphanius, ADVERSUS HAERESES 29, 7, PATROLOGIA GRAECA 42, 402).

In spite of Epiphanius' attempt to treat the Nazarenes as "heretics" because "they practiced the customs and doctrines prescribed by the Jewish law," nothing heretical about them appears in the rather extensive account he gives of their beliefs. The basic difference between Nazarenes and the "true Christians" is, according to Epiphanius, the fact that the former "fulfill till now such Jewish rites as the circumcision and the Sabbath." The latter practices hardly qualify the Nazarenes as "heretics" since these practices were held by the primitive Jerusalem Church.

The fact that the Nazarenes, who represent the direct descendants of the Jerusalem Church, retained Sabbath-keeping as one of their distinguishing characteristics until at least the fourth century shows convincingly that the Jerusalem Church observed the Sabbath during the apostolic age. This fact discredits any attempt to make the Jerusalem church the pioneer of Sunday-keeping.

Remember the Sabbath

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:2-3

Which day is the Sabbath?

"The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God." Exodus 20:10. "And when the sabbath was past, ...very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre." Mark 16:1,2.The Sabbath is not the first day of the week (Sunday), as many believe, but the seventh day (Saturday). Notice from the above Scripture that the Sabbath is the day that comes just before the first day of the week.

Was the Sabbath day changed?

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God." Deuteronomy 4:2.

"Every word of God is pure. ... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5, 6.

God has specifically and positively forbidden men to change His law by deletions or additions. To tamper with God's holy law in any way is one of the most fearful and dangerous things a person can do. God's law is good and a blessing. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12

"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." James 1:25

Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:18-19

What would Jesus do?

In John 15:10 Jesus said "I have kept my father's commandments" and we can also find from scripture that Jesus attended church on the Sabbath day. "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read." Luke 4:16

What did the Apostles do?

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." Acts 17:2. "Paul and his company ... went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down." Acts 13:13, 14. "And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts 16:13. "And he [Paul] reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Did the Gentiles also worship on Sabbath?

God commanded it: "Blessed is the man ... that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it." "Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, ... every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer ... for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." Isaiah 56:2, 6, 7, emphasis added.

The apostles taught it: "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath." "And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts 13:42, 44, emphasis added. "And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4.

Was the Calendar Changed?

Yes. In order to keep up with the solar cycle the calendar was changed once in October 1582, but it did not alter the weekly cycle. Ten dates were omitted from the calendar following October 4, 1582. What would have been Friday, October 5, became Friday, October 15. The diagram below will help you to visualize the change. You will see that it did not change the order of the days of the week.

Saved From Bibliolatry

Often when people discover that the scriptures DO NOT speak of being saved from a hell of eternal torment, they wonder "from what then are we saved?" This is usually spoken in a condescending manner and tone. Rest assured we are saved from plenty of things: religion, death, wrath, judgment, sin, etc.

A post has already been made about being saved from religion. Today, the post is regarding being saved from idolatry, specifically Bibliolatry.

Once upon a time, while living in Texas and attending Rainbow Hills Baptist church in a suburb of San Antonio, it was over-heard from the mouth of a deacon, "If the King James was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me!" The sincerity in his voice was convincing. Unfortunately the sentiment is not isolated. 1611 KJV only churches (God bless them for their devotion) are highly susceptible to legalism not far removed from that of the ancient Pharisees. What may be even more telling is that it is doubtful that most 1611 KJVers realize how many revisions the text has gone through in the past 400 years. Entire books have been removed from the original! All the same, they press on with their traditions.

In our time, living under the law may assume the form of biblicism. Many suppose that the evangelical faith stands or falls on the matter of biblical inerrancy ­ meaning that the very letter of Holy Scripture is without any error in everything it affirms, including theology, history, ethics, geography, biology and chronology.

The great danger of biblicism is that, instead of being used solely in the service of the gospel, the Bible becomes a book of rules about many other issues. Christians may become enslaved to the Bible just as the Jews became enslaved to the Torah ­ their Holy Scripture (John 10:34,35). Just as the Jews barricaded themselves behind the letter of the Torah to oppose Jesus, so we may easily barricade ourselves behind the letter of a supposedly inerrant Scripture to oppose the gospel's festival of freedom.

There can be a false faith in the bible. In the proper spiritual sense faith is an act of real worship which should be rendered solely to the Creator (John 9:35-38). Saving faith is not faith in the Bible (for even the Christ-denying Pharisees trusted in the Bible ­ John 5:39) but faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:22-26). While Catholics have been particularly susceptible to ecclesiology --­ the worship of the church; ­ Protestants have been disposed toward bibliolatry ­ the worship of the Bible.

The purpose of all Scripture is to bear witness to Christ (John 5:39; 20:31). The Bible in itself is not the Word of God. The Word of God is a person (John 1:14). Neither does the Bible have life, power or light in itself any more than did the Jewish Torah. These attributes may be ascribed to the Bible only by virtue of its relationship to Him who is Word, Life, Power and Light. Life is not in the book, as the Pharisees supposed, but only in the Man of the book (John 5:39).

The Bible is therefore to be valued because of its testimony to Jesus Christ. The Bible is absolutely trustworthy and reliable for the purpose it was given. It is designed to make us ''wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus'' (2 Tim. 3:15), not wise on such subjects as science, history and geography ­ which it is our responsibility to learn through general revelation.

That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit ­ even the letter of Scripture.

If we do not allow the Bible to be the Word of God ­ the bearer of the gospel ­ it might be better to follow Luther's advice to read some other book. For if the Bible is not used in the service of the gospel, it may either find people mad or make them mad.

We must stop using the Bible as though it were a potpourri of inerrant proof-texts by which we can bring people into bondage to our religious traditions. (For in practice the only inerrancy we ever defend is the inerrancy of our religious traditions and our way of reading the Bible.) We must no longer use the Bible as the Pharisees used the Torah when they gave it absolute and final status. Christian biblicism is no different from Jewish legalism. It is the old way of the letter, not the new way of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6).

Jesus and Paul declare that apart from the Spirit we cannot understand the truth (John 16:13; I Cor. 2:14). This means that unless we are caught up in the Spirit of the gospel, we cannot understand or use the Bible correctly. Apart from the gospel the Bible is letter (gramma), not Spirit (pneuma). ''The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom'' (II Cor. 3:6,17).