Keep the sabbath holy

[2ndpillar]

Theodosius was not repairing any schism. He declared Nicene Christianity as the official state religion of Rome and anyone declaring a different flavor of Christianity to be the right one was in trouble. What exactly this Nicene Christianity consisted of was not decided until the following year. This was not a reconciliation move. This was a ‘my way or the highway’ statement. And the highway could lead to some really bad places. The 381 Creed was just that a Creed, not a detailed theology. It was something short enough to memorize and to declare on demand as a sort of Pledge of Allegiance.

There is no mention of persons in either form of Nicene Creed. That does not appear until De Trinitate in the 5th century. The 381 Creed is still compatible with subordinationism. The Son is begotten by the Father, although eternally and not created in time as Arius claimed. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son, although that trouble making phrase may not have been original). The Son is said to be of the same essence as the Father. Not consubstantial as Augustine translates ὁμοούσιον into Latin. This allows thinking that the Father and the Son are the same thing, rather than consisting of the same kind of thing. But that is what Augustine wants to be the case. One of Auguastine’s objectives was to dispose of the still strong hint of polytheism in seemingly having three Gods.

The Milvian Bridge vision in the sky sounds very much like something that Eusebius invented years after the fact of that military victory. Or are you saying that there really is a Sun god that can aid in military success? Coins minted following that battle depict Constantine and a sun god side by side. It is not unusual in Roman and other cultures to attribute victory to divine aid. It is both an expression of humility of piety and at the same time a statement of divinely granted authority, Constantine was definitely not a Christian at that time. He favored Christianity as a political move to reduce the power of the old-guard pagan nobility who were happier when there was a divided empire and less powerful emperors. Constantine did not submit to being baptized until he was dying. Having to live a Christian life is not compatible with exercising total power as Emperor, something Theodosius discovered to his regret years later.

The crucifixion of Jesus and the imagery of the cross as an important symbol in Christianity appears as early as Paul in the mid 1st century and many times afterward in Christian writings. I was raised Catholic and have read extensively on early Christianity. Never have I seen any mention of the cross being thematically connected with the Trinity. It also does not make sense. Why would the crucifixion of the Son be connected with the Trinity? A very misleading image and reminiscent of the Patripassian heresy argued against by Origen in the preceding century and which never had many followers anyway.

Revelation is a big topic but how you are wrong is not for today and we are already far astray from the topic of this thread,

While I was raised in a Catholic family, I don't know the customs of today. In the days of yore, one made the sign of the cross with the phrase, in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. The sign of the cross was intimately connected with the Trinity. As for the false prophet Paul joining the imagery of the cross with salvation, such as in his false gospel of the cross/grace, well, those who follow the ravaging wolves, wind up on the path to destruction (Matthew 7:13-15).
As for the story of Milvian Bridge, I suspect Eusebius, as the court historian, made up both versions. The first being around 312 AD, 1 year prior to Constantine minting his sun god coin, and another once Constantine started pushing his new Roman church. As for Constantine being baptized, that story would have been written by Eusebius, an Arian, and once he mentioned that history was often not true, written falsely for the good of the little people.

 

[2ndpillar]

Christ’s crucifixion was mentioned by Tacitus around AD116. Link to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

“ …The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Christ, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.

The context of the passage is the six-day Great Fire of Rome that burned much of the city in AD 64 during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero. The passage is one of the earliest non-Christian references to the origins of Christianity, the execution of Christ described in the canonical gospels, and the presence and persecution of Christians in 1st-century Rome.

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.

Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60:

(i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time,

(ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and

(iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea …”


Tacitus did not like Christians, so he had no reason to make up anything. Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor from 306 to 337. So he did not invent the crucifixion or the cross?

No one is arguing that there was no crucifixion. The problem is with it being used as an icon, in the sense of an idol affixed on "Christian" churches, and around the necks of "Christians" to ward off vampires. The imagery of the law being nailed to the cross, a Pauline invention, is what is referred to as "lawlessness", and is addressed in Matthew 7. The "cross" is an ancient pagan symbol, and is now used as an idol made of wood, gold, silver, etc. The gospel of Yeshua was the kingdom of God, which is the keeping of the commandments. The gospel of Paul is the gospel of the cross/grace, in which the commandments/law is nailed to the cross. In the kingdom, the 4th commandment is kept, in the kingdom of the wicked, the commandments are nailed to the cross, and subsequently, they suffer weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

[RJM]

The problem is with it being used as an icon, in the sense of an idol affixed on "Christian" churches, and around the necks of "Christians" to ward off vampires.

Is it not perhaps used as a reminder and reference to the crucifixion and, more important, the resurrection of the Christ? Do Christians worship or idolize the cross itself? Where it may be used, say in an exorcism, it is used as a sort of 'lens' to focus attention upon the power of Christ?

A soldier with a picture of his wife in his pocket, does not idolize the picture itself? Though he treasures and venerates it.

Holding a rosary in time of trouble does not imply the beads and crucifix themselves have any power -- but the rosary focusses attention upon the power of the Christ?

 

[Miken]

While I was raised in a Catholic family, I don't know the customs of today. In the days of yore, one made the sign of the cross with the phrase, in the name of the father, the son, and the holy ghost. The sign of the cross was intimately connected with the Trinity. As for the false prophet Paul joining the imagery of the cross with salvation, such as in his false gospel of the cross/grace, well, those who follow the ravaging wolves, wind up on the path to destruction (Matthew 7:13-15).
As for the story of Milvian Bridge, I suspect Eusebius, as the court historian, made up both versions. The first being around 312 AD, 1 year prior to Constantine minting his sun god coin, and another once Constantine started pushing his new Roman church. As for Constantine being baptized, that story would have been written by Eusebius, an Arian, and once he mentioned that history was often not true, written falsely for the good of the little people.

The sign of the cross existed at least since the 3rd century, as seen in the story of Hieromartyr Cyprian and Virgin Martyr Justina. This was well before the idea of the Trinity as a triune God with all persons equally God was developed in the early 5th century. Consequently, it was not a sign of the Trinity as later envisioned. Subordinationism was still very much common in the 3rd century, including such major voices as Origen. It was Arius claiming that Jesus was created in time that precipitated the crisis of thought.

The two Nicene creeds of the 4th century (Nicaea and Constantinople) were steps along the way to establishing the fully formed Trinity concept but were not yet all the way there. The phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” existed already in the 1st century in the Gospel of Matthew as the formalism to be used for Baptism. It is highly questionable that Matthew considered Jesus to be actually divine rather than the very special human that the Messiah was expected to be. The early concept of the Holy Spirit would have been the ruach (breath) of God, whereby life is given, exactly as in the Jewish scriptures. We can still see this meaning in the Constantinople Creed of 381 where the Holy Spirit is the ‘giver of life’. In subsequent theological thought, that aspect vanishes, supplanted entirely by the Pauline concept of the Holy Spirit as the source of spiritual life.

I have no interest in discussing Paul as a ‘false prophet’ because I do not believe there are any ‘real prophets’. However, the historical development of schools of thought and interactions between those schools of thought, I find fascinating.

The church that Constantine pushed represented the largest school of thought and one that stressed the idea that Jesus was divine. This school of thought was also tolerant of the detail differences held by its various members. The emphasis on the divinity of Jesus was in opposition to those others who stressed the human side of Jesus in the age-old humanist tradition of Greek thought. A divine Jesus was more compatible with a centralized authoritative form of government and therefore more to Constantine’s liking.

If it were just philosophical arguments going on among member of a small minority religion, Constantine would not have cared. But he was supporting Christianity financially and in other ways as part of his efforts to reduce the power of the old guard pagan nobility who were much happier before Constantine when the empire was divided among multiple weaker emperors.

But ultimately Constantine had to act. The arguments among the two main schools of thought had turned violent with riots, arson and even assassinations of rival bishops going on. The two main areas of unrest were Alexandria and the most easternmost regions of the Empire. Alexandria was the main port of Egypt, the main source of grain and tax revenue. That port getting shut down would be disastrous. In the far eastern regions, the Persians were once again rattling their swords and could use the civil unrest along the borders as an opportunity to invade. Constantine’s real intent was to stop the civil disorder to protect the well-being of the Empire. Getting a Rome-centric church would be a nice side product of that.

 

[RJM]

The sign of the cross existed at least since the 3rd century, as seen in the story of Hieromartyr Cyprian and Virgin Martyr Justina. This was well before the idea of the Trinity as a triune God with all persons equally God was developed in the early 5th century. Consequently, it was not a sign of the Trinity as later envisioned. Subordinationism was still very much common in the 3rd century, including such major voices as Origen. It was Arius claiming that Jesus was created in time that precipitated the crisis of thought.

The two Nicene creeds of the 4th century (Nicaea and Constantinople) were steps along the way to establishing the fully formed Trinity concept but were not yet all the way there. The phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” existed already in the 1st century in the Gospel of Matthew as the formalism to be used for Baptism. It is highly questionable that Matthew considered Jesus to be actually divine rather than the very special human that the Messiah was expected to be. The early concept of the Holy Spirit would have been the ruach (breath) of God, whereby life is given, exactly as in the Jewish scriptures. We can still see this meaning in the Constantinople Creed of 381 where the Holy Spirit is the ‘giver of life’. In subsequent theological thought, that aspect vanishes, supplanted entirely by the Pauline concept of the Holy Spirit as the source of spiritual life.

I have no interest in discussing Paul as a ‘false prophet’ because I do not believe there are any ‘real prophets’. However, the historical development of schools of thought and interactions between those schools of thought, I find fascinating.

The church that Constantine pushed represented the largest school of thought and one that stressed the idea that Jesus was divine. This school of thought was also tolerant of the detail differences held by its various members. The emphasis on the divinity of Jesus was in opposition to those others who stressed the human side of Jesus in the age-old humanist tradition of Greek thought. A divine Jesus was more compatible with a centralized authoritative form of government and therefore more to Constantine’s liking.

If it were just philosophical arguments going on among member of a small minority religion, Constantine would not have cared. But he was supporting Christianity financially and in other ways as part of his efforts to reduce the power of the old guard pagan nobility who were much happier before Constantine when the empire was divided among multiple weaker emperors.

But ultimately Constantine had to act. The arguments among the two main schools of thought had turned violent with riots, arson and even assassinations of rival bishops going on. The two main areas of unrest were Alexandria and the most easternmost regions of the Empire. Alexandria was the main port of Egypt, the main source of grain and tax revenue. That port getting shut down would be disastrous. In the far eastern regions, the Persians were once again rattling their swords and could use the civil unrest along the borders as an opportunity to invade. Constantine’s real intent was to stop the civil disorder to protect the well-being of the Empire. Getting a Rome-centric church would be a nice side product of that.

Well there you are: the wise ruler works to unite his people rather than to divide his nation between factions with selfish intention of promoting one faction to further his own political advantage. Civil war can never be a good thing. And internal division will encourage interference by outside forces. Maybe history has something to teach us?

 

[Thomas]

The sign of the cross ... was well before the idea of the Trinity as a triune God with all persons equally God ...

This is something that many critics of Christianity overlook, in the assumption that a doctrine appears as if from nowhere. I wholly agree here, and applaud the mention, of the idea that Christianity did not arrive as a cut-and-dried set of beliefs, but evolved through a long and painful process.

It was Arius claiming that Jesus was created in time that precipitated the crisis of thought.

Again, the development of doctrine and as-near-as-possible concrete definitions emerged out of the councils that were called to resolve conflicts.

The phrase “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” existed already in the 1st century in the Gospel of Matthew as the formalism to be used for Baptism.

And here's another factor. The average Christian is not a theologian, and likes to think, or believe, simply. So Christianity was triune, in that sense, from the very early days. That triune was the inchoate Trinity.

Ask Trinitarian Christians today — Catholics, Orthodox, etc., — to define the Trinity, and give them more than 30 seconds and they'll probably wander into heresy, but they are not themselves heretics. It's just a very difficult doctrine to get your head round.

The early concept of the Holy Spirit would have been the ruach (breath) of God, whereby life is given, exactly as in the Jewish scriptures ... In subsequent theological thought, that aspect vanishes, supplanted entirely by the Pauline concept of the Holy Spirit as the source of spiritual life.

This sparked my interest. I wonder if you'd be interested in filling it out a little?

However, the historical development of schools of thought and interactions between those schools of thought, I find fascinating.

Along those lines.

 

[2ndpillar]

Is it not perhaps used as a reminder and reference to the crucifixion and, more important, the resurrection of the Christ? Do Christians worship or idolize the cross itself? Where it may be used, say in an exorcism, it is used as a sort of 'lens' to focus attention upon the power of Christ?

A soldier with a picture of his wife in his pocket, does not idolize the picture itself? Though he treasures and venerates it.

Holding a rosary in time of trouble does not imply the beads and crucifix themselves have any power -- but the rosary focusses attention upon the power of the Christ?

Your "Christians", holding on to their idols of "gold and of silver and brass and stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk" (Revelation 9:20), have no power, and are in for a rude awakening. By using Paul's theology of nailing God's commandments/law to the cross, you have denied the 2nd commandment of "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image". This applies to images of the cross, or of Mary, or Joseph, or of an image of a child. If one has the Spirit of God, the anointing, they need no graven image. If a soldier had a wife given to him by God, then they are joined, and are one body, and he would be in constant contact with her no matter the distance. The same Spirit that lives in her would live in him, and he would be of one mind, spirit, and body. No photograph would be necessary. As for priest using a cross in exorcism, or repelling vampires, the pope tried and failed, and his solution was to hire 500 more priest exorcist. How did that work out? The demons seem to be in a frenzy right now, not because of someone shoving a cross in their face, but because their time is running out.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Huge difference between a symbol held in homage to God and a symbol worshiped as God to which the 2nd commandment refers, if read in it's entirety.

 

[RJM]

By using Paul's theology of nailing God's commandments/law to the cross, you have denied the 2nd commandment of "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" ... If one has the Spirit of God, the anointing, they need no graven image

What about this?

And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

And this?

“Now they shall construct an ark of acacia wood two and a half cubits long, one and a half cubits wide, and one and a half cubits high. You shall overlay it with pure gold, inside and out you shall overlay it, and you shall make a gold molding around it. (Exodus 25:10-11)

Did the Israelites worship the serpent or the Arc?.Did God instruct Moses to make idols?

 

[Thomas]

Your "Christians", holding on to their idols of "gold and of silver and brass and stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk" (Revelation 9:20), have no power, and are in for a rude awakening.

Ah, you see, this is where people tend to get it wrong, because they don't read the text.

The text is in Exodus (20:2-6) and Deuteronomy (5:6-10)
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."

So, on a full reading, the prohibition is against 'other gods' and the prohibition against any graven image or likeness is, again, referring to a graven image or likeness of 'them', that is, other gods.

So it's all there if you read the text.

Further to that, most people need something more concrete than the abstract, we're not, as a species, all philosophers or intellectuals. We need our images, we need something upon which we can focus. Without it, everything becomes vague. That's why God is called 'Father', because it gives people something they can work with, rather than First Principle, etc., so beloved of the philosopher.

This applies to images of the cross, or of Mary, or Joseph ...

No. Because we do not worship the image, but what the image signifies, which is ultimately, God.

God reads the heart, so if the heart is in the right place, then everything else is OK.

That is why the prohibition against condemning our brother or sister — because we don't know.

There is a wisdom of the wise: If you can't think of anything good to say about someone, best say nothing at all.

Criticising your neighbour is one of the best ways the pesky little critters use for getting in the door, as it were.

The demons seem to be in a frenzy right now ...

If that is so, it's because they're getting so much attention. It's called 'the oxygen of publicity'. Every time someone steps up to stand against a demon, the demons delight, because now they've got a way in.

Another wisdom: "You become what you think about."

The saints, the Children of Light, are unassailable because the are full of light. They don't give this a moment's thought. As soon as you think 'demon', or anything associated, you create a shape, a shade, a harmonic, a gap, through which the little critters can work their way in.

Here's a story:
A certain man, a saint and hermit, lived in a cave in the mountains. The Deceiver said to two of his minions, "See if you can bring me his soul."

So they rocked up, and they offered the man food and wine, but he desisted. So they offered him wealth, and he politely refused that, too. So next was women, another no-go, and pretty soon they'd exhausted every trick in their book, and they sloped back to the pit with their forked tails between their legs.

"You guys," the Deceiver said. "What you lack is subtlety."

So he took them back to the mountain, hid them and told them to watch. Then he walked up, much like another mendicant monk, and spoke as one man might to another. The saint invited him in, and the two ate and offered thanks and spoke of many small, inconsequential things. Then they spoke of their families, and the saint mentioned he had a brother, whom he had not seen for many years, living in the city.
"I know of him," the Deceiver cried with delight, "He's just been made Bishop of Alexandria."
"Son of a bitch!" shouted the hermit. The Deceiver turned and winked at his minions. "That's the way to do it."

 

[2ndpillar]

Ah, you see, this is where people tend to get it wrong, because they don't read the text.

The text is in Exodus (20:2-6) and Deuteronomy (5:6-10)
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments."

So, on a full reading, the prohibition is against 'other gods' and the prohibition against any graven image or likeness is, again, referring to a graven image or likeness of 'them', that is, other gods.

So it's all there if you read the text.

Further to that, most people need something more concrete than the abstract, we're not, as a species, all philosophers or intellectuals. We need our images, we need something upon which we can focus. Without it, everything becomes vague. That's why God is called 'Father', because it gives people something they can work with, rather than First Principle, etc., so beloved of the philosopher.


No. Because we do not worship the image, but what the image signifies, which is ultimately, God.

God reads the heart, so if the heart is in the right place, then everything else is OK.

That is why the prohibition against condemning our brother or sister — because we don't know.

There is a wisdom of the wise: If you can't think of anything good to say about someone, best say nothing at all.

Criticising your neighbour is one of the best ways the pesky little critters use for getting in the door, as it were.


If that is so, it's because they're getting so much attention. It's called 'the oxygen of publicity'. Every time someone steps up to stand against a demon, the demons delight, because now they've got a way in.

Another wisdom: "You become what you think about."

The saints, the Children of Light, are unassailable because the are full of light. They don't give this a moment's thought. As soon as you think 'demon', or anything associated, you create a shape, a shade, a harmonic, a gap, through which the little critters can work their way in.

Here's a story:
A certain man, a saint and hermit, lived in a cave in the mountains. The Deceiver said to two of his minions, "See if you can bring me his soul."

So they rocked up, and they offered the man food and wine, but he desisted. So they offered him wealth, and he politely refused that, too. So next was women, another no-go, and pretty soon they'd exhausted every trick in their book, and they sloped back to the pit with their forked tails between their legs.

"You guys," the Deceiver said. "What you lack is subtlety."

So he took them back to the mountain, hid them and told them to watch. Then he walked up, much like another mendicant monk, and spoke as one man might to another. The saint invited him in, and the two ate and offered thanks and spoke of many small, inconsequential things. Then they spoke of their families, and the saint mentioned he had a brother, whom he had not seen for many years, living in the city.
"I know of him," the Deceiver cried with delight, "He's just been made Bishop of Alexandria."
"Son of a bitch!" shouted the hermit. The Deceiver turned and winked at his minions. "That's the way to do it."

Satan was included among the sons of God (Job 1). The demons were a product of the heavenly watchers and the daughters of men (Genesis & Enoch). The Trinity of the pagans can be represented by Zeus (the father), Apollo (the son), and Astarte (the queen of heaven). Astarte (Easter), is honored by the pagans during the Spring Solstice period (Easter). On the "day of the sun" god, Sol Invictus, the Christians worship Easter, whereas the actual date of the Passover is shunned by the Christians. In the time of yore, the Catholic women came into the church and made the sign of the cross and kneeled before the image of Mary, and they also made the sign of the cross and kneeled in front of the actually cross, representing one of the sons of God, who by virtue of the false Trinity dogma, is considered to be God himself. As per the 1st commandment, you "shall have no other gods before me". As per your skewed interpretation of the 2nd commandment, well, I guess you will have to live with that, or not.

 

[RJM]

kneeled in front of the actually cross, representing one of the sons of God, who by virtue of the false Trinity dogma, is considered to be God himself.

Christians* have no problem accepting the Christ as fully God and fully man -- both. The bridge between God and man. It's the central belief. I don't know about other Christians, but in fact Catholics exhibit the crucifix, which is the figure of Christ crucified upon the cross.

and kneeled before the image of Mary

Yes. Images of the Holy Mother are a part of Catholicism -- the image a reminder of whom it represents, and not itself worshipped.

It is to the Father our prayers are eventually to reach. The minister has no power except as agent of the king. Christ said this many times. We can be sidetracked into legalism, but the meaning is clear, imo? Spiritual truths are sometimes better expressed as symbols, than by words?

*Most Christians, to my knowledge?

 

[Thomas]

The Trinity of the pagans can be represented by Zeus (the father), Apollo (the son), and Astarte (the queen of heaven).

No, not at all. Astarte is not even a member of the Greek pantheon. There are various syncretic associations, Aphrodite, Europa, etc, but then your triune above falls apart. Apollo is one of many sons, but his mother is Leto ...

Astarte (Easter), is honored by the pagans during the Spring Solstice period (Easter).

Wrong again, I'm afraid. Easter comes from the German Ostara / Eostre / Eastre, the Germanic Goddess of spring and dawn. The Anglo-Saxon name for April was Eostremonath. She is the goddess of the Spring Equinox. She is probably related to Eos, the Greek goddess of dawn, and both can be traced even further back to a Proto-Indo-European goddess of dawn.

As per your skewed interpretation of the 2nd commandment, well, I guess you will have to live with that, or not.

LOL, my 'skewed' interpretation is what the Book says — I rather think yours is an erroneous assumption, having not read the complete text.

 

[2ndpillar]

The tradition of "Easter" comes from the timeline of the Nicene Council, whereas Passover, a Jewish feast day, reminding the Israelites, of how they escaped the angel of death, was subverted into a tradition following the timing of a pagan holiday instead. Easter was not founded on some medieval German tradition. And Passover was on any day of the week, as long as it landed on the 14th day of Nissan. Easter is a completely false narrative, whereas by the dawn of Sunday, which happens on the evening of the the 7th day of the week, the grave was already empty (John 20:1). As for the queen of heaven, apparently according to the Roman church leadership/pope, Mary is now presiding in heaven. As for multiple gods, such as a Trinity of gods, that is pagan in origin, such as imagined as Babylon the Great, the names are different, such as the sun god, which was Bel during the time of Babel. During the time of Constantine, the image of the sun god, Sol Invictus, was on the coin Constantine minted. The statue of Constantine, in Constantinople apparently had the image of Apollo. As for other pagan festivals mixed in with Christianity, the 25th of December was the supposed birth date of Sol Invictus. As for the birthdate of Yeshua, it was most likely around the fall of 6 BC, before the death of Herod.

 

[Thomas]

Hi 2nd Pillar —

We've got to the point that whenever someone correct your errors, you just pass on to the next, and then reiterate them afresh. So this time, I'll simply state where I think the evidence says your are wrong. I am willing to discuss if you'll allow you might be wrong, but if you simply want to keep reiterating then there's no point. Your choice.

The tradition of "Easter" comes from the timeline of the Nicene Council, whereas Passover, a Jewish feast day ... was subverted into a tradition following the timing of a pagan holiday instead.

No. It was a case of establishing a common date through the Empire. East and West celebrated different dates, although both were based on their interpretation of the Jewish calendar. All the derivations came from transposing the dates of the Passover, pagan holidays never came into it, and the community would not have stood for it.

Constantine just wanted a Christianity where 'everyone was on the same page'.

Easter was not founded on some medieval German tradition.

No, it was founded on Hebrew Tradition and Christian Revelation – the word derives from the German, it was the erroneous etymology of the word I was correcting.

And Passover was on any day of the week, as long as it landed on the 14th day of Nissan.

Yes.

Easter is a completely false narrative ...

Well if you think the Resurrection is a false narrative then everything else is rather by-the-by, isn't it.

As for the queen of heaven ...

That, too, derives from Hebrew Tradition, in which the Mother of the King is the Queen.

As for multiple gods, such as a Trinity of gods

Oh dear, you really have got the wrong end of the stick here.

... that is pagan in origin ...

Again, quite utterly wrong.

... As for other pagan festivals mixed in with Christianity, the 25th of December was the supposed birth date of Sol Invictus.

And again ...

 

[2ndpillar]

Hi 2nd Pillar —

We've got to the point that whenever someone correct your errors, you just pass on to the next, and then reiterate them afresh. So this time, I'll simply state where I think the evidence says your are wrong. I am willing to discuss if you'll allow you might be wrong, but if you simply want to keep reiterating then there's no point. Your choice.


No. It was a case of establishing a common date through the Empire. East and West celebrated different dates, although both were based on their interpretation of the Jewish calendar. All the derivations came from transposing the dates of the Passover, pagan holidays never came into it, and the community would not have stood for it.

Constantine just wanted a Christianity where 'everyone was on the same page'.


No, it was founded on Hebrew Tradition and Christian Revelation – the word derives from the German, it was the erroneous etymology of the word I was correcting.


Yes.


Well if you think the Resurrection is a false narrative then everything else is rather by-the-by, isn't it.


That, too, derives from Hebrew Tradition, in which the Mother of the King is the Queen.


Oh dear, you really have got the wrong end of the stick here.


Again, quite utterly wrong.


And again ...

Constantine was the Pontifex Maximus, a position usurped from the leaders of the pagan religion by Julius Caesar, which was the title of the leaders of the pagan religion who took care of the gods and the calendar. Constantine was the head of the pagan church, and his concern was a united empire, which in practice entailed combining the traditions of the pagan with the followers of the church of Peter and Paul. Julius Caesar changed the calendar, and the Augustus Caesar, Constantine, changed the law and the time as well, per Daniel 7:24-25, after subduing 3 other kings. The Roman Senate, after killing Caesar, declared him a god, and as an Augustus Caesar, Constantine deemed himself a god as well. He cared nothing for some beliefs of others. His god was the god of war, and his warriors/soldiers, were followers of the sun god. His declaration in 321 AD was that the "day of rest" would be the day of the sun, Sunday, and that no one could work, for the markets and public offices would be closed. This still today marks the followers of the beast and his false prophet.
Constantine's favorable attitude towards "Christianity", was that his mother was a convert, and he was apparently mother's boy, which apparently didn't carry over into the care of his wife, whom he had killed. He did honor the church of Peter and Paul, for which his mother favored, by honoring the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah 11:17), Peter, and the false prophet Paul, by building them both basilicas, which are churches built in the model of the pagan cross.
As for the term "queen", the Old English meaning was wife of king, or female ruler of state. The current Catholic queen of heaven would be "Mary", who was the wife of a lowly carpenter. The only Hebrew so called female leader would be a judge, who was not a wife of the king.
The Council of Nicaea specifically changed the date of Passover to obliviate the Jewish tradition. Israel, on Passover were saved from the angels of death by placing blood above their lintels during Passover. The current practice is to place the 10 commandments on their lintels per the Word of God. As for the "Christian" tradition, Easter Sunday is made holy per the Council of Nicaea, convened by the 7th head of the beast (Revelation 17), Constantine, whereas per the resurrection, on the beginning of the 1st day, which starts on the evening of the Sabbath, the crypt was already empty (John 27:1). Your whole construct is built on sand. Your religious training seems to have taken you down the rabbit hole.
As for the resurrection, according to Yeshua, there would only be one sign (Matthew 12:39), he was to be in the belly of the whale for 3 days and 3 nights. You cannot fit 3 days and 3 nights between the "Christian" good Friday and before the dawn of Sunday. Preparation day happened on the 14th of Nissan, which was a Thursday. The burial happened prior to sunset, and 3 days and 3 nights later, prior to the sunset of the 7th day, the crypt was emptied. The "evil generation" (Matthew 12:39) got their sign, but they made up their own story.

 

[RabbiO]

Israel, on Passover were saved from the angels of death by placing blood above their lintels during Passover. The current practice is to place the 10 commandments on their lintels per the Word of God.

Incorrect.

 

[2ndpillar]

Why Jews Hang a Mezuzah on the Doorpost | My Jewish Learning
Exodus 12:23 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you

Deuteronomy 6:9
inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

 

[RabbiO]

Why Jews Hang a Mezuzah on the Doorpost | My Jewish Learning
Exodus 12:23 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you

Deuteronomy 6:9
inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

1) As a Jew and as a rabbi I find it kind of offensive that you think you need to instruct me regarding mezuzot.
2) Nothing in the article contradicts what I said. The assertion in your post - the part I italicized and underlined - is incorrect.

 

[RabbiO]

Re-reading my response - #59 - I wonder if I was a bit too brusque. Sometimes I can be. If so, I apologize.