posted
With an exception at Acts 19:37, the word church is used in English translations for the Greek word “ekklesia.” As most Greek dictionaries and lexicons show, the Greek ekklesia means a group or assembly of people called out of the population at large. Therefore, the ekklesia is an assembly of called out people. Its meaning focuses on people.
In the Hebrew, the comparable word is "qahal" which means an assembly specially convoked, or a congregation as an organized body (Brown, Driver and Briggs’ “A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament”). Again, the focus is on people.
There is also one more Hebrew word refering to people in the OT. It is edah which means "an appointed meeting" (Young’s “Analytical Concordance,” p. 107). Edah and qahal differ in that edah evidently means the physical assemblage of the congregation in one, single, called meeting or assembling together; while the word qahal has an application to the collective people in the congregation (the general membership).
The problem of the English church is that it is typically used in the context of the building or physical place where Christians meet. While English dictionaries allow that church can refer to its people, the focus is almost always on the building. Even English dictionaries, like Webster's, start off with the "Lord's house" (here, Lord does not refer to either YHWH or YESHUA, but to another personage) and a building. This doesn't fit with the Greek or Hebrew.
Among the Jews, the word synagogue is similar to church in that it usually refers to a building. But it can refer to the people who worship there. Yet, the Scriptures define the physical place where the qahal worship as a House of Prayer for All People (Isa 56:7; Matt 21:13).
In the NT, the believers worshipped in Jewish synagogues and in homes. The Greek NT has 57 references to sunagoge (synagogue) and almost always in the context of where YESHUA, Shaul and the others worshipped on Sabbath days.
Sometimes, English translations don’t translate the Greek sunagoge as synagogue (as happens at Acts 13:43 and James 2:2). It is also true that the Greek episunagoge” is incorrectly translated at II Thessalonians 2:1 and Hebrews 10:25 (where it means “going to synagogue”).
John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2 are used in the vein of being expelled or put out of the synagogue (as eventually happened to believers in about the 2d century when the Jews turned against the Messianics).
The Septuagint translated the Hebrew qahal either as ekklesia or as sunagoge (“Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,” v. II, p. 1991).
The bottom line is that the English word church does not reflect the correct meaning for ekklesia/qahal. Probably English words like Congregation or Assembly are closer to truth. In our house worship back in the 1970s, our group used the word fellowship. Perhaps home/house fellowship would be a good way to refer to a home worship group.
posted
The word church must start with a look at the Greek kurios. The Greek word “kurios” is typically used to translate the Hebrew Adonai and the Tetragrammaton YHWH. These Hebrew words and kurios, as well, are generally translated into English as “Lord." Interestingly, the English curious ties to kurios. Truly, the queer Satan was the first “Curious” one!
Now, what about kurios? What is the basis of its usage in the Greek language? C. J. Koster has done some outstanding work in tracing the origin of the Greek kurios. He found that kurios was used in ancient Greece as both a title and a proper name (like Christos and Chrestos). He also found that Kuris is another name for the sun god Adonis.
Per Koster, kurios was sometimes rendered as “kuros” (the later Persian word for sun; in old Persian, it is kur). Kur is another name for the Babylonian sun god Nabu. Finally, he noted that one of the Greek sun deities was mercury, in Greek “mer--kurios” (Addendum, “The Final Reformation,” p. 3).
For church, "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary" gives us this definition-- "church, n. [ME. chirche, cherche; AS. circe, cyrce; Late Gr. kyriakon, a church, from Gr. kyriake (supply doma, house), the Lord's house, from kyriakos, belonging to the Lord or Master; kyrios, lord, master, kyros, supreme power, authority,] 1. an edifice consecrated for public worship, especially one for Christian worship."
The "Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible" adds that "The Eng. word 'church' with its cognate form, 'kirk' is derived form the Gr. word kyriakon, signifying 'the Lord's' or belonging to the Lord." In terms of the real meaning of this word "Lord," the reader (may refer back to the above discussion on kurios).
Therefore, the word "church" cannot produce any basis, support or legitimacy in trying to fall back on the very questionable "Lord" in its definition.
Beyond the previous discussion on kurios, the root of this word "kyrios," mentioned in the above Zondervan definition, means "to swell, to be strong." It is linked with the Sansk "sura" (meaning "strong, brave, hero"), per the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." By the way, all of this is suggestive of Nimrod who was called a "mighty one" and a "mighty hunter" by Moshe long ago (Gen 10:8-9).
Question--could the "kyrios" mentioned so far tie in some fashion to the historic Nimrod? Answer--it is very likely that Nimrod was the first kyrios, since this word kyrios has been used extensively in classical and mythological Greek for all of the heathen gods and rulers of ancient Greece and other nations (as well as The MESSIAH in the Greek New Testament).
For circe, "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary" tells us of the Anglo Saxon "circe" as follows: "Circe. n. in Homer's Odyssey, an enchantress who turned men into swine." In the Odyssey, Circe enticed men into her evil house in their hope for sex. There, she turned them into pigs. Per J. E. Zimmerman's "Dictionary of Classical Mythology," Circe was the daughter of the sun god Helius.
In an article on “The Anatomy of a Church,” the former Dr. Ernest L. Martin wrote that Circe was famous for taming wild animals in her circus. In the classical accounts, she is shown holding a golden cup in her hand, mixed with wine and drugs, through which she controlled the kings of the earth. As Martin noted, this Circe must surely connect to Mystery Babylon of Revelation (chapter 17).
In Appendix 186 of the excellent "Companion Bible," Dr E. W. Bullinger wrote that the English word "church" compares to the Hebrew "kikkar," meaning "a circuit or disc."
"Peloubet's Bible Dictionary" noted of church-- “The derivation of the word is generally said to be from the Greek kuriakon..., belonging to the Lord. But the derivation has been too hastily assumed. It is probably connected with kirk, the Latin circus, circulus, the Greek kuklos.... because the congregations were gathered in circles.”
"Fausset's Bible Dictionary" tied church to kirk by saying that it is "...from circus, whence kirk, a circle, because the oldest temples, as the Druid ones, were circular in form."
J. B. Hannay's "Sex Symbolism in Religion" suggested that "The Saxon name church or kirk was derived from the old cult of stone circles, such as were set up by the Druids... The circle or ring is, as we will remember, the Persian door of life... All circles are feminine; we remember Yima in Russia was given a ring and a dart (our egg and dart ornament) to produce all creation, and the ring was the door to the garden which held all the seeds of life."
In "The Two Babylons," Alexander Hislop wrote that "the disk, and particularly the circle, were the well-known symbols of the Sun-divinity, and figured largely in the symbolism of the East. With the circle or disk, the head of the Sun-divinity was encompassed.
"The same was the case in Pagan Rome. Apollo, as the child of the Sun, was often so represented. The goddesses that claimed kindred with the Sun were equally entitled to be adorned with the nimbus or luminous circle. We give from Pompeii a representation of Circe, the daughter of the Sun... with her head surrounded with a circle, in the very same way as the head of the Roman Madonna is at this day surrounded..."
Godfrey Higgins, in "Anacalypsia," linked stone circles in India and elsewhere to sun worship. He said that "...every cathedral or Druidical circle had its sacred mount for its processions... The ecclesiastical polity of the Romish church is, to this moment, almost wholly Druidical."
In "The Egyptian's Heaven and Hell," E. A. Wallis Budge described a mythological city in the kingdom of Osiris as having "a number of Circles in which dwell the gods."
Obviously, the circle was used both as a representative of the female principle in heathen worship and a classic symbol of the sun god. The circular structures of stones, etc used by the Druids and others were likely linked to the worship of the sun god in some fashion (like the famous Stonehenge).
The process of gathering in circles is closely tied to the Christian Church. In “Fossilized Customs” (p. 41-42), Lew White notes the practice of the early sun worshipping Druids to gather in circles.
He says that many modern practices of gathering around the fire crux pole go back to the time of ancient sun worship. White notes the Scandinavian solstice festival around a bonfire with a crux pole and the Ku Klux Klan act of circling the fire crux, symbol of the god Woden.
As observed in the various citations presented so far, the word church and its sources, by and large, suggest a physical facility for the worship of the sun god.
The place one must inevitably come to on this topic is that the English word church clearly suggests a “circle of sun worshippers,” meeting in an edifice, building or physical facility of some sort, dedicated to Circe, the daughter of the sun god Helius. (The above has been taken from v. 14, chapter 213, Ezekiel and YHWH's Judgment on the Good News People, on the net at [URL=http://www.ageend.com]).
I agree the word "church" was a bad pick. Its etymology goes all the way back to Sanskrit "sura" for hero, approximately the same as "knight." The English word "church" implies things belonging to that sort of lord, primarily his household. It is most certainly the wrong emphasis, because the servants in that household were of no importance whatsoever. While you and I do well to regard ourselves insignificant in the Kingdom, the emphasis in Scripture is upon the people having a high value. That's a signal difference between Eastern and Western style feudalism, and the Bible assumes the former: an Eastern lord is known by his servants; a Western one by his tangibles, especially his turf.
However, English is a musical language, in that saying "house fellowship" is clumsy. Perhaps "home fellowship" rolls of the tongue better, but I find even the less-than-precise "house church" manages to convey something at the root of what sets us apart. I strive always to choose precisely what seems best to fit in the context, and might use several overlapping terms just to be sure they get it. In writing, it's an art to say less and put across more content.
posted
Here's another item on church. Though English translators of the Greek NT have had it wrong on ekklesia (in translating it to church), they did it right in one place in the KJV.
Acts 19:37 has a reference to robbers of sun worship temples. The KJV correctly zeroed in on reality when it chose the English church--the classic English presentation of a sun worship temple.
While most Christians are not aware of it, but the truth is that there historically has been a tie between the ancient sun temples and later Christian churches.
The famous American composer, painter and author F. Tupper Saussy put it like this: “By the fourth century, one-half of the lands and one-fourth of the population of the Roman Empire were owned by the priests.
"When the Emperor Constantine and his Senate formally adopted Christianity as the Empire’s official religion, the exercise was more of a merger or acquisition than a revolution. The wealth of the priests merely became the immediate possession of the Christian churches, and the priests merely declared themselves Christians. Government continued without interruption.
“The pagan gods and goddesses were artfully outfitted with names appropriate to Christianity. The sign over the Pantheon indicating ‘To [the fertility goddess] Cybele and All the Gods’ was rewritten ‘To Mary and All the Saints.’ The Temple of Apollo became the Church of St. Apollinaris. The Temple of Mars was reconsecrated Church of Santa Martina, with the inscription ‘Mars hence ejected, Marina, martyred maid/Claims now the worship which to him was paid.’...
“Haloed icons of Apollo were identified as Jesus, and the crosses of Bacchus and Tammuz were accepted as the official symbol of the Crucifixion. Pope Leo I decreed that ‘St. Peter and St. Paul have replaced Romulus and Remus as Rome’s protecting patrons.’ Pagan feasts, too, were Christianized...”
Here, it might be noted that the Roman empire had multitudes of pagan sun worshippers and sun worship temples when the sun worshipper Constantine came to power, c321. After he elevated the Roman Church into world prominence and rule, most of these pagan sun worshippers and sun worship temples quickly and mysteriously vanished.
Question--where did they go? Yes, many or most of the sun worship temples of Shaul's day in Acts 19:37 would in time become Christian churches. Next, how about the sun worshippers. Where did they go? Would anyone care to comment on this? Maybe a new thread can be opened on this question.
posted
The implication is they were absorbed into the offically approved churches of that day. Those same churches absorbed Aristotelian philosophy, big chunks of Gnosticism, and many other harmful things. Thus, even the Reformers found it impossible to completely break away from a whole range of assumptions which we cannot find in Scripture.
posted
Yes Mr Hurst, you must be right on the Christian absortion of the sun worshippers in Constantine's day.
Many Christians want to blame Constantine for the many evils which came into Christendom in his day. Modern Sabbath keepers in particular have long been upset over Constantine's edict of Mar 7, 321 which set aside the venerable day of the sun as Rome's official rest day (in Code of Justinian, Book 34, Title 12, Law 3, in Corpus Juris Civilis,l v. 2, p. 108). But i take the position that Sunday worship and many other unscriptural acts in Christendom started long before Constantine. What Constantine and his successors did was to make them and numerous other unscriptural things mandatory under threat of death/punishment.
Once Christianity was the empire's official religion, it appears certain that all or almost all of the worshippers in the non-christian groups abandoned their former ties and became Christians (under threat of death or other punishment to do otherwise). This was called taking the "gospel" to the world.
For the next 1260 years (until the Protestant Reformation), Catholic priests followed Catholic armies (particularly from France, Spain and Portugal) around the world to impose its brand of Christianity on the masses under the power of the sword. That's why everything South of the Rio Grande became Catholic. They either submitted to baptism or they were dead. Most gladly submitted.
It seems certain that the power of the sword made European sun worshippers quite happy to become Christians in Constantine's day--immediately. Surely, the newly baptized sun worshippers continued to think and talk in terms of their old terminology. Perhaps this real world thing contributed to the choice of the sun worship word church for Christian worship sites.
While people then were ignorant and facing death from a tyrannical power, their bad decisions were considerably different than people since the Prostestant Reformation who have had religious freedom. Yes, if we choose to hang onto all that sun worship after being exposed to the truth, we could be in trouble when judgement arrives. Like Rev 18:4 says of Babylon--come out of her my people.
posted
Are you a Sabbatarian? I suppose we'll have to disagree on that. I honestly believe it makes no difference, and as one who avoids debate (not my calling), I'd rather not make an issue of it. There is far too much of importance which we share.
posted
Besides the linkage of the church to the old sun worship cults, as discussed above, there are an array of other features which make the tie to sun worship even more profound. Surely, some of this stuff contributed to the choice of the word church in Britain.
Anyone interested in delving into the physical Christian churches must be struck at once with the huge attributes of churches which have their origin in the sun worship temples/cults.
The architecture and physical designs of many churches are expressley sun worship in origin. A simple thing like stained glass windows may seem innocent enough but their orgin comes from Egypt and Egyptian sun temples. Often Christian churches are constructed so they face the East. You know why. Because the old sun temples faced the East so the worshippers could face the rising sun (like at Easter sun rise services). YHWH's Temple was constructed so the worshippers had their backs to the East as they faced West.
The interior furniture is generally sun worship--like the so-called Christian altar, aisles, arrangement of chairs and podium, etc. Pictures, images, etc were common in the sun temples. Many Christian churches follow the same pattern.
While mother Rome has led the way in this depravity, the Protestants have often followed. Take the Seventh-day Adventists. One would think that surely their churches would not be filled with sun worship. But they are--all the way from stained windows to huge numbers of pictures of an effeminate, long-haired so-called savior (here, some informed people claim that these pictures are of Apollonius. My view is that they are of Satan. i can back my view up from the Book).
Can any of the readers cite something in a typical Christian church which comes from the Scriptures? Of course, this reality is one of the bad things in the IC. Anyone interested in this theme might want to read Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons." C.J. Koster's Come Out of Her My People and the Final Reformation, and Lew White's Fossilized Customs, all of which are excellant as well.
posted
There is still one more key feature on the typical Christian church. Many maps use a little box for a church with a vertical spiral to depict a steeple and sometimes a cross on top of the spiral. Of course, many Christian churches are identified by the steeple attached to the front of the church. But since a steeple is not defined for worship sites for believers in the NT, one must wonder where they come from as they are extremely popular in Christendom.
Well, it should not require a genuis to recognize at once that they are phallic symbols of the erected male organ. They are vulgar and dirty. Yet, Christians love them. Actually, they are obelisks with an origin from ancient Egypt where they were used to identify temples of the sun god. Any traveler or visitor in an early Egyptian village could immediately find and locate a local sun worship temple as obelisks were used to identify them. Their height dominated the local land areas and they were easy to find--same as modern Christian churches.
But interestingly, they are cited in the Word--in the OT where they are condemned as evil. While English translators often failed to popularly translate their Hebrew words correctely, sometimes truth did filter thru when they were called images.
Jeremiah 43:13 cites them as the images (with the Hebrew metzebah) of Bethshemesh. The word Bethshemesh means house of the sun. It is called Heliopolis in Greek, which refers to the temples/city of the sun in Egypt. In Final Reformation, C. J. Koster says metzebah can best be translated as pillars, sun pillars or obelisks. A related Hebrew word is hammanin which can be translated as sun images.
The book of Ezekiel uses these two Hebrew words and frequetly condemns them. Most translators struggle with these two words and end up leaving confusion with the reader. But the Amplified Bible does a good job and one can read it and immediately see the problem.
The Roman emperor Caligual (37-42 CE) brought one from Heliopolis in Egypt to his circus on Vatican Hill. In 1586, Pope Sixtus V moved it to St. Peter’s Church. Another one was brought to New York City. The Washington monument is one.
They are an evil form of idolatry in the age ending House of Yisrael (Lev 26:1, 30; Isa 27:9; Ezek 6:4-6; Hos 10:1-2; Mic 5:12-14--per the "Amplified Bible"). YHWH hates them and ordered them all to be destroyed (Ex 23:24; 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; 16:22; II Kg 3:2).
There is some interesting legend from Egypt which explains these vulgar sun images. It seems that the sun god Osiris was slain in Egypt by his brother Set and cut up in several pieces and scattered across Egypt. Isis (Easter in Anglo Saxon lands), both wife and sister of Osiris, wanted to find the pieces so Osiris could be resurrected to life. She began a 40-day search across Egypt (the 40 days were to be later called Lent). She found all the pieces on Black Friday (also called Good Friday), save one.
The missing part turned out to be the male sex organ. She still wanted to find the missing part. So she ordered obelisks, dedicated to the Osiris sex organ, be emplaced across Egypt so the people would not give up the search but would continue looking for it.
The choice of the word church to identify the place where Christians worship might not have been a bad decision at all. Or was it in view of the obelisks?
posted
The Cross...has been a heathen sun worship idol from antiquity (per “The Two Babylons,” p 197, by Alexander Hislop and per “Fossilized Customs, p. 47 and 101, by Lew White).
Historically, the cross came to be a formal Christian symbol or image in 431 CE and was first used on church steeples in 586 CE (per Ralph Woodrow’s “Babylon Mystery Religion”). In background, it was a favorite image and symbol of the sun worshipper Constantine, who took over the Roman Empire c312-313 CE (thus, it probably had some Christian use this early or earlier).
But interestingly, the cross idea or symbol has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Scriptures (in a positive way) or with the death of The MESSIAH--though it has been promoted and used extensively as a Christian symbol for ages.
Interestingly, the English word “cross” in the NT is a translation of the Greek word “stauros” which appears 28 times in the NT where it is always translated as cross. However, stauros literally means “an upright pole or stake.” A second Greek word associated with The MESSIAH’s death is “xulon” which means “a piece of a dead log of wood.”
The Greek xulon appears 19 times in the New Testament where it is commonly translated as “tree, wood, stave or stock” (per “The New Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament”). In five of those usages, xulon (translated as tree) clearly ties to the death instrument used in The ANOINTED ONE’s execution.
The meaning of both NT words can be the same (per Dr E. W. Bullinger, an authority on New Testament Greek, in his “Companion Bible”). Other Greek lexicons and dictionaries bear out the same findings as well.
As Dr Bullinger saw it, there is nothing in either word to allow its connection to a cross instrument of “two pieces” of wood or timber. Categorically, the two words are referring to a single piece of wood, as in a vertical pole or stake. And if the translation of “tree” is valid for xulon, then the most that one can conclude is that the stauros was attached to the xulon in some fashion that would still be vertical for two good reasons to follow.
(First) Moshe wrote that if a man is put to death for sin and hung on a tree (Hebrew “ets,” meaning a tree), then his body is not to remain on the tree over the night, for he that is hanged on a tree is accursed (Deut 21:22-23). The Apostle Shaul saw the connection when he wrote that The MESSIAH became a curse for us, for it is written “cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (xulon)--quoting from Moshe (Gal 3:13).
The other reference also came from Moshe when he wrote that the people were to take a fiery bronze serpent and attach it to a pole (Hebrew “nec,” meaning a vertical flagstaff, pole or standard), so that persons bitten by a serpent could find healing and life by looking upon the fiery serpent on the pole (Num 21:8-9).
The Apostle Yohanan also linked these mitzwot (meaning commandments and the plural form of the Hebrew mitzwah) to The MESSIAH’s death when he tied the symbolism of the two situations together on two occasions (Jo 3:14, 12:32-33). As Yohanan saw it, The SON OF ADAM clearly hung on a vertical pole or stake, as did the serpent under Moshe’s writing.
All of this background research is more than sufficient to conclude that there is just no way that a cross of two pieces of wood could be construed as the death instrument of SALVATION. The Hebrew MESSIAH died on a vertical pole or stake which “possibly” (although not certainly) could have been attached vertically to a tree.
(This) writer has seen pictures of figurines from archeological digs of condemned individuals impaled on vertical poles or stakes on occasion. The impaled person’s arms were extended over the head and the arms and/or hands were nailed to the top portion of the pole.
An article by Hartmut Stegemann in “Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls” (p. 135) reports on some reliefs found which showed three nude Israelites hung on a pole or stake by the Assyrians at the fall of Lachish c700 BCE. Stegemann says that the Dead Sea Scrolls have references to the hanging of people on a pole (Hebrew “talah al ha-nes”) for certain criminal acts.
He suggests that hanging people alive by this method was familiar to the people of Yisrael--as well as others for many long centuries, preceding the time of YESHUA in the early first century CE. This appears to have been a common method of execution 2,000 years ago (and is conclusively proven from the just noted archeological finds).
Though Christian scholars claim that crosses were sometimes used for crucifixion, this writer has never seen any firm archeological evidence of such theories. In the absence of clear proof, this claim may or may not be valid.
Regardless, there is the indisputable evidence of the use of vertical poles or stakes which is substantiated from the Scriptural and historical records.
Where Did the Cross Idea Come From?
Manifestly, as noted above, there is absolutely no way that an honest student of the Word can deduce a cross of two beams from the various Scriptural references to the topic in either the OT or the NT or in the Hebrew or even the Greek. Yet, the word cross and the idea of crucifixion upon a cross have completely dominated Christianity for vast eons of time.
If this thinking is wrong (as it is), where then did it come from? Put another way, why is it and how is that Christendom has grabbed this pagan symbol for her sign of identification when the cross is so totally foreign in the Word?
Author Lew White, in his excellent presentation on “Fossilized Customs” (p. 47, 101), attacked this problem head on. White says that in every part of the world, crosses were used as religious symbols or ornaments long before the Christian era.
Richard M. Rives, in “Too Long in the Sun” (p. 139), suggests that the cross symbol goes all the way back to Nimrod (who was venerated as the reincarnation or progenitor of the sun god Tammus in ancient Babel).
This work by Rives notes that the cross was associated with the letter T, which was the symbol of Tammus. A picture of an ancient relief or image of Tammus carrying his cross is in “Too Long in the Sun” (p. 139).
In Fossilized Customs,” Lew White goes on to assert that the cross became a symbol of Christianity in Constantine’s time (early 4th century CE)--though Ralph Woodrow dates it formally a little later, as noted above.
Although the writer of this study at hand is not attempting to dispute Lew White, but mention must be made of the possibility that the cross came to be associated with Christianity much earlier than Constantine’s time (c312 CE). Later chapters will address the history of Christianity. It is possible to perceive that the sun worship cross symbol had some recognition in Christendom perhaps before the fourth century CE.
The Latin Vulgate Influence
The above quoted Lew White adds that when Jerome translated the Scriptures into the Latin (for the Latin Vulgate, in the late 4th century CE), he transposed the Greek “stauros” into the Latin “crux.” To the sun worshipping Mithraists, the crux had religious significance as an “X” or a vertical line crossed horizontally.
Per White, the sun was crossing the celestial equinox in the zodiac sign of Taurus in the spring when the Mithraists sacrificed the Taurus (bull). Reportedly, these pagan Mithraists allegorized or interpreted this as the sun (Mithras) overcoming the bull, crossing the celestial equator. Thus, the cross became their most cherished religious symbol.
Of course, the relevance of the cross was not only germane in the Mithra cult; but also, all or most all other sun cults as well. White says that the cross symbol was the symbol of the sun, “par excellence.”
Once the Latin Vulgate was in existence in the Christian “Bible” for 1,200 years, the bias and influence of the words cross, crux, crucifixion and crosier (in the Vulgate) came to become the foundation of Christian theology and thinking. When the early Protestants broke from Rome and made their own translations of the Book, the bias was already established in their mentality and they didn’t break free of it.
The Cross Sign
Additionally, the religious ritual of making a sign of the cross on the forehead and chest of believing Catholics is most interesting because it positively links to ancient Babylonian sun worship, as Alexander Hislop wrote (“The Two Babylons,” p. 197). Otherwise, it could be even more ancient than what Hislop found.
Second century CE Christian historian Tertullian mentioned that the sign of the cross on the forehead was made by Mithra worshippers in the Roman army (“Too Long in the Sun,” p. 141). Obviously, this sign is quite ancient.
In fact, the evil cross idol (from sun worship) might go all the way back to Cain and the mark which was put on him for protection and security--in his hands and forehead, just as Babylonian sun worshippers and Catholic Christians have done for centuries with their "sign of the cross" (a fetish, cultist act done by sun worshippers regularly, whenever they are in fear or trouble or facing a trying situation) and with the image and acceptance of healing from the popular Red Cross sign (used for medical facilities and people).
Mark of the Beast?
Sacred Name leader Earl Bigford of Holt, Michigan first pointed out the connection of the Christian cross to the Scriptural “mark of the beast” to this writer many years ago.
At once, Bigford’s words resonated with this writer because it was easy to see the sign of the cross commonly used by Catholic Christians as a fetish act of protection which completely fulfills what one might expect in terms of a sign in the hand and on the forehead.
While this linkage of the sign of the cross almost assuredly has a historical relevance, in terms of an ante-typical fulfillment of the mark of the beast, this writer is compelled to mention that the age end fulfillment of the mark of the beast might be and probably will be a more clearly discerned event.
The evil cross symbol is so pagan that Darrell W. Conder makes the case that it is one of the greatest of embarrassments to both Catholic and Protestant Christians and that many choose to ignore its history while others contend that it doesn’t matter (“Mystery Babylon The Great,” p. 64).
It Doesn’t Matter?
This “it doesn’t matter” is a favorite attitude or motivation of much of Christianity in the context of why the churches put up with and tolerate their various pagan, sun worship symbols, images, customs and practices. But these Christians will be shocked one day when they find out that things do matter. (The above remarks on the cross have been taken from v. 1, chapter 7, Ezekiel and YHWH's Judgment for the Good News People, on the Internet at http://www.ageend.com).
Since the question of why the word church was attached to Christian worship sites, it seems imperative that the word cross be examined since it is a prime identification symbol of a Christian church. Possibly it was no accident or fluke that the word Church became attached to Christian worship sites? Or was it?
posted
I believe you may have pushed the envelope a little far on this one. It concerns me your sources appear to be few. There are plenty of sources indicating cross-beam execution was quite a bit older than Imperial Rome. Try this one:
As a separate issue, whether symbols can be considered inherently good or evil due to previous uses, I don't think anyone has the right to decide that for another. We have enough trouble getting people to agree on English words and phrases; as we move from precise technical and clinical terms into art and poetry, things get murky quickly. Visual symbols are even murkier.
However, I will support one small part of your post regarding New Testament Christian symbols: It is far more likely Christians used the "ichthus" than the cross.
Why would you think the mark of the beast would be a literal sign, such as a Christian cross, in the forehead or hand? So much of the passage is symbolic. Why literalize the sign or mark?
God also has a mark, or sign, he places in the forehead of the saints. Sometimes referred to as a seal or name. Will God tattoo our bodies? In certain places the Holy Spirit is given as a seal and the Sabbath as a sign.
What if the mark of the beast were something simple like belonging to a state religion and the mark of God was to stand firm against it. The forehead represents the mind, or reasoning power. The hand represents strength, or work. One could receive the "mark" in his forehead if he believed in the state-church and willingly joined. He could receive the "mark" in his hand if he joined simply to avoid the economic sanction against all "heretics." Remember, a law is enjoined forbidding all who do not worship the beast to buy or sell.
posted
My thanks to Messers Hurst and Logan for their contributions to this important subject.
Your idea on a state religion could be on the mark Mr Logan, and certainly it does not dispute my post which said: "While this linkage of the sign of the cross almost assuredly has a historical relevance, in terms of an ante-typical fulfillment of the mark of the beast, this writer is compelled to mention that the age end fulfillment of the mark of the beast might be and probably will be a more clearly discerned event." Certainly my post is not dogmatic on what the eventual mark will be. Perhaps it will be a state religion as this is a very good suggestion.
On your words Mr Hurst, i must stick by what my post says. My post reads: "Though Christian scholars claim that crosses were sometimes used for crucifixion, this writer has never seen any firm archeological evidence of such theories. In the absence of clear proof, this claim may or may not be valid." That statement is categorically correct. Failing firm evidence, the idea must remain on the block as a question or at best an unproven theory.
i have seen in the Eerdsman Handbook to the Bible (probably the 1973 ed) pictures from archelogical digs of small statutes or figurines of 1st century people impaled on a vertical pole. These artifacts came from Turkey. i have never seen anything comparable on so-called crosses. But if such exist, then my post does not dispute them. Perhaps they do exist. it's just i have never seen anything convincing.
The three cites you present are all conclusions of contemporary people. They are awful short on proof. There is much commentary but really no proof of at least anything from the early 1st centruy CE. The first cite mentions a discovery of a drawing of a "crucified" ass dated to after 200 CE. This proves nothing in terms of my post.
My post allows for early Christian use of the cross idea long before Constantine. So if it was believed in 200 CE, so what? If Justin Martyr believed it in 141 CE, so what? Justin also believed in Good Friday and Easter Sunday, both of which he was wrong on. Early Christian belief doesn't prove YESHUA's death on a cross.
A man named Watters alleges archeological evidence but his words offer little or no proof. He does have a sketch of some person alleged to have been crucified. But this sketch has been made by contemporary artists. It may or may not be correct.
All three of these cites seem to liberally use the words cross and crucifixion and even present some believed evidence of nails being used on the hands of persons. But the Christian bias here, which is not founded on fact, undoubtedly influenced the choice of words (this bias is precisly the reason why English translations of the NT make such frequent uses of the words cross, crucify, etc). Even with an impalement on a verticle pole, nails were used. So it is no big deal to find evidence of persons being nailed to a pole.
Frankly, in my 73 years, i have read numerous "Bible Dictionaries" and their words on crucifixion and crosses. But i have never seen any convincing proof (like other Scripturally uninformed persons, i too believed this stuff until i was 35 years old when change came). These words in your three cites, Mr Hurst, are the words of contemporary persons which may or may not be correct.
Mr Hurst, you also said: "I believe you may have pushed the envelope a little far on this one. It concerns me your sources appear to be few. There are plenty of sources indicating cross-beam execution was quite a bit older than Imperial Rome."
Mr Hurst, you then cite three, none of which prove anything in my view. They are interesting reading but not conclusive.
While you cited three, my posting makes reference to 13 sources--eight of these from writers like the three you cite and five from the Scriptures. The five Scriptures are absolutely conclusive. It's hard to improve on Deut 21:22-23; Num 21:8-9; Jo 3:14; 12:32:33; Gal 3:13. One of your cites, Mr Hurst, does mention Deut 21:22-23 but then glosses over those words as if they didn't exist. Otherwise, my other eight and your three are all the ideas of men, which may or may not be correct in the final analysis.
Anyway, thank you both for your contributions. You may be on the right path on the mark, Mr Logan. i certainly cannot argue against your idea here at this time.
posted
I am no debater, no professor, and have no interest in those things. My comment was not in the way of proving you wrong, but indicating there are other points of view, quickly accessible on the Net. I have only my own calling and faith. I will offer this one final comment: Your sources are few in the sense you emphasize the writings of a select group of men with no credibility in my mind. I pretend no authority for anything other than my own soul in communion with the Holy Spirit. I find you a dangerous and disputatious heretic, a threat to the Biblical faith. Since you are welcome here, I am not.
posted
Isn't the "cross" as a watch sign for believers part of a group of biblical types, such as the "taw" in Ezekial 9?
As I see it, the mark of the beast in revelations is a deliberate satanic imitation of the "sign" or "taw" already on believers, and a reference also to Exodus 13:9 "This observance will be for you like a sign on your hand and a reminder on your forehead that the law of the LORD is to be on your lips. For the LORD brought you out of Egypt with his mighty hand."
As such, use of the symbol as a reminder of our redemption story may not be required but is not anti-biblical.
I, too, am concerned, RD, that you seem to be bringing to this forum an agenda that has little to do with house church, but rather the promotion of a set of doctrines that closely resemble all the "burned over district" doctrines of the 1800's. What's up with that??
posted
Thanks all for your comments. Sorry, Laurie Ann, i'm not familiar with the burned over district of the 1800s. There might be others on the forum who are not familiar with it. Maybe you or someone else can explain it--in perhaps a new thread if we are moving away from the church theme.
Yes, if i had lived back in the old days before religious liberty and freedom came, it is highly probable that i would have been arrested and burned at the stake (which was the approved method of dealing with heretics, under both Rome and the early Protestants). In the 16th century, Michael Servetus was arrested in Switzerland and tried as a heretic because he did not believe in the Christian trinity. The reformer Calvin was a chief witness against him. SO they burned him at the stake. The executioner was so hateful that he used green wood so Michael could be slowly roasted and fried to death.
Whatever faults the 1st century synagogues had, they allowed religious freedom for a person to go in and say whatever he wanted to without fear of sanctions and expulsion. YESHUA, Shaul and the others took advantage of this and said things that were not politically correct in those days. It's too bad, but starting with Rome and its successor ICs, there has been efforts to stiffle, halt and disallow contrary beliefs to the spin being fed the sheep (when you put new wine in an old container, the new wine starts to ferment and expand. It then will literally explode an old container--Mt 9:17). Many people simply don't want to hear anything except what they already believe and support. They are in no mood to entertain different thinking.
We are now approaching world government. We see it everyday and almost all leading world politicians are actively pushing it. Once it's in place, there will be no more freedom of speech, where one can say anything--and particularly in religious matters. To survive and get along with others, one will have to bite his tongue and speak only politically correct words. Today's America has an agenda of political correct ideas which cannot be opposed. You either talk in terms of what the new world order establishment allows or you are in trouble. Periodically, people get fired from their jobs for daring to say the wrong words. i wish all religious groups and forums would open their doors to allow some contrary thinking.
There is a relevant Scripture here. It is Matt 13:11. There are things which were meant only for certain defined people (a select, elect, small group--a few, not the many). The many other persons were never supposed to get it. Understanding was closed to the all others in the collective society for good reasons. Shalom.
posted
E. Hurst wrote: "I find you a dangerous and disputatious heretic, a threat to the Biblical faith. Since you are welcome here, I am not. Farewell, folks."
I am very sorry that Mr. Hurst left us. I think he had something to contribute. But, obviously he was in the wrong place. When you come to this forum you are going to get a lot of confusing doctrines thrown around because, and hopefully, the HC body is not limiting who can house-church. Also, and in no way less significant, is this business of thinking or calling a brother or sister an heretic. It's pride and arrogance rolled together. And, whoever calls their brother a fool is in danger of hell fire themselves.
Controversy is healthy. God uses it to aggitate minds to seek an answer to the question, "What is truth?" Martin Luther certainly didn't think he was starting a controversy. But God used that to explode the mainstream thinking at the time producing what we call the Reformation and the Protestant movement. It is our privilege and duty to share our beliefs. And, if someone wonders off the path we can help guide their feet back onto the true path by presenting to their minds persuasive arguments for the truth. But never by coercive tactics such as denunciation or ridicule.
Now, I do understand that the forum moderator does have some rules to follow and there is a defined purpose for this site. We should all re-familiarize ourselves with those rules and the purpose of this web site. Click on "faq" and look for item regarding review of User Agreement.
I SINCERELY hope you don't mean that, brother, and that you will change your mind. You have made a good contribution to this forum. You have certainly encouraged me.
Obviously, anyone can walk right in here and participate - none are screened nor undergo a background check.
When false teachings arise - they will - it's time to prove all things and hold fast to what is good. I know how messy AND SLOWLY this happens... But let the truth rise to the top, please.
Me, I have repeatedly and recently found false teachings in my own scheme of things. Thank God for those who have given me an occasional nudge.
One thing that might help is simply posting once or twice per day, as prescribed. This way, there is less likelihood of feeling dominated or overwhelmed by any person's views. I'll do this if you will!
posted
"Burned over district" can be googled or wikipedia'd. Fascinating reading about most of the popular American doctrines. These peculiar beliefs tend to be legalistic, man-centered, intellectual rather than spiritual, and above all divisive on points that have little to do with obeying the commands of Christ and a lot to do with outward piety.
The burned over district is a wonderful warning to us to Make Disciples instead of Teaching Theology. Wild heresy happens when people get a lot of "revival meetings" and not much "life in the Spirit."
Church Planting Movement advocates note that when we promote simple obedience to Jesus, and avoid raising "apostolic practices" to the same level as "apostolic teaching" it allows a lot of freedom in Christ, and promotes unity. For example, if I want to wear a head covering in the assembly, I'm free to do that, and if my sister doesn't she is free also. We may prefer to worship more often with those who agree with us on such an issue, but we will not make it a salvation issue. Paul, Peter and James set the example at the Jerusalem council for maximum grace and minimum conflict. They presumed, however, both regeneration and loving obedience to the basics, as well as simple faith. It shouldn't require knowledge of three languages to feed the poor or raise the dead.
posted
I agree with David. Your posts E Hurst have been very encouraging for myself and many others. We would like to continue to have the benefit of your input.
posted
Here are three Scriptures which are relevant to this theme. Deut 4:13-19 outlines YHWH's command to Yisrael and a warning to obey lest Yisrael be drawn away to worship (adore or even just respect) the sun, moon and stars (which He defines as the host of heaven). Then He added on the sun, moon and stars--that He divided them unto all the nations.
Richard Ellitott Friedman's Commentary on the Torah says "God is understood to have provided the pagan deities that the other nations worship." Soncino Books of the Bible adds: "God had tolerated worship of the heavenly bodies in all other nations. But for Israel, He...revealed to them the truth from which they must not deviate."
In mythology, the moon goddess is the consort of the sun god. The New American Bible says for verse 19 "do not be led astray into adoring them and serving them." In the Scriptures, even the showing of respect to pagan deities becomes a form of worship (per John McClintock and James Strong's "CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL, AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE."
In Deut 17:2-5, YHWH again addresses this problem of sun worship, etc (in the host of heaven, as defined in Deut 4:19) and pronounces a death sentence on such persons (by stoning).
Finally, another relevant text is at Acts 7:42 in Stephen's defense of his faith. He addresses the (lost) House of Yisrael and says that YHWH turned and gave them up (abandoned them) to worship the host of heaven. From this text, it is clear that He got fed up with their sin (sun worship) and abandoned them to sun worship, etc. Please understand that the House of Yisrael is not the Jews and the modern Jews are not the House of Yisrael. They are two different peoples.
Actually, when the kingdom divided, following the death of Shlomo, the House of Yisrael went into sun worship under Jeroboam. It intensified and especially under Ahab and Jezebel. Finally, YHWH got fed up with them; divorced His wife the House of Yisrael; turned her over to the Assyrians and abandoned her to outright sun worship.
But as bad as they were, He had chosen Yisrael for His purposes. Therefore, the NT is all about the Good News for the abandoned and divorced (lost) House of Yisrael. They will be redeemed under the Renewed covenant in the future.
In Christianity, there is a Christian belief that the Christian Church displaced or replaced all the good associated with Israel in the Book. This Christian belief adds that if there is any bad on Israel, it pertains to the Jews and not the Christians. If it is good, it is for Christians. If it is bad, it is for the Jews. So how about Acts 7:42? This text concerns the lost House of Yisrael, not the Jews. If Israel means Christianity, then Stephen's message is that YHWH abandoned the Christians to sun worship. Surely, Christians will not insist that Israel means Christianity in Acts 7:42--will they?
Maybe the better view is that when reading about Israel it must be understood that Israel does not mean Christendom. Therefore Christianity is not the House of Israel in Acts 7:42. Lost Israel has to be some other definition of people. But who are they?
Find a modern nation out in the world, steeped in sun worship, and you may have found the lost sheep of the House of Yisrael. And what would be the signs or symbols that would define that sun worship? Would they use "church" buildings with steeples, crosses and stained glass windows? Any suggestions?
posted
On this thread, EHurst wrote: "I find you a dangerous and disputatious heretic, a threat to the Biblical faith." Laurie Ann added: "you seem to be bringing...a set of doctrines that closely resemble all the 'burned over district' doctrines of the 1800's".
In the recipients thread, Laurie Ann said: "It seems to me that you have a lot of history under your belt, yet you have not love (charity). May the Lord deliver you from your bondage to clanging!"
Of course, to question crosses, steeples, stained glass windows, etc, it can be expected that people locked in traditional Christianity would go on the attack. But i thank you for those words and especially your observations Laurie Ann. My feeling is that your words make a contribution to truth. And hopefully that's what this forum is about--truth and righteousness. Isn't it?
Laurie Ann when i reflect on your words three things come to my mind. First, i have written in this forum some stuff on the role of women, on Scriptural study, knowledge and understanding, etc. Your words Laurie prove my points precisely. i thank you, i thank you! i could never have proven such as perfectly as you have done.
Next, Laurie, your words to me have several times opened the door for me to share complicated themes with the forum which i might not have even brought up on my on. Now, you have brought up love. Of course, i can write a book on this subject. And the important thing about love is that it is not what Christianity says at all. Actually, Jeff Logan has tounched upon it briefly in this forum. So i will in the future offer the Scriptural definition of love. i must say thank you Laurie Ann for bringing up this vital subject.
By the way, Shaul's famous dissertation in I Cor 13 has a outline on what charity/love is not. He says that it is not having all faith; it is not giving all your assets away to feed the poor; it is not giving up your life as a martyr for your beliefs; and so forth. i think of the millions who died for religious freedom. But all this was not love. Laurie i remember in your postings that you believe you should give to the poor and raise the dead. But this is not love. Therefore, what is love? i will address it in the future with a Scriptural definition.
The last third item that you have brought Laurie is that you have allowed some controversy into this forum and offered some harsh words to me. Actually, Americans, to include Christian Americans, love controversy. In fact, this forum is about "radical Christianity." My gut feeling is that the bringing up of this controversy spells out eventually a number of new readers and participants. There are people out in the world who are not interested in the old, dry, dull routine of sweet nothings and frivolous nonsense from traditional Christianity. Your words Laurie to me offer something different. We'll find out in the future.
Rush Limbaugh in big on US radio. One day he was discussing his perception of how liberals react to facts and truth. He said that when you present undeniable facts and truth to them, about something, they get mad and begin a personal attack on you for presenting facts and truth to them. They can't handle truth and they can't dispute or argue with truth and facts. So they make the argument a personal attack on the person speaking the truth/facts.
We may have this very situation here on the question of crosses, steeples and stained glass windows. Rather than addressing these issues, persons have turned the issue around to a personal attack on me for daring to bring this stuff up. It would have been better for them to intellectually address crosses, steeples and stained glass windows. Instead i have become the subject of a personal attack. So, this is good for the three reasons cited above. Yes, all things work together for good (in certain instances, per Romans 8).
posted
"the question of crosses, steeples and stained glass windows."
Why, RD, do you think I care about these things? The whole point of leaving the "IC" is that we recognize the folly of much I have done, and am questioning EVERYTHING I have been doing since I made a decision to follow and serve the Messiah in 1969.
Four years ago, I was engaging in mass crusades, promoting VBS, leading a gospel choir, teaching Sunday School, performing for thousands, leading women's Bible study groups, teaching English as a second language, and just generally trying to find ways to trick people into coming into a facility that had, yes, crosses steeples and stained glass windows.
I have rejected all these things. I now stay at home, mind my own business, butcher chickens, cook real food, "raise" instead of "school" my children, serve and honor my husband, love my neighbor, give in accordance with biblical principles of generosity (like Paul, I am mad to brag about these things, but it shows how my life has changed). I refuse to put anything on the calendar except opportunities to obey the commands of Christ with others. I may not have completely arrived at being the people God wants... but this I focus on: Jesus said the Kingdom was obtainable to little children. I will not spend precious hours on "vain knowledge that puffs up" when He is waiting for some from every ethne to exalt him.
Many, many of your assumptions about me seem to be based one what others do. I am only trying to understand you based on what you have actually said here. You may define "love" your own way, but I find it hard to see charity in your attitude toward other peoples. It just sounds to me like you are defining salvation so that God's mercy reaches virtually no one.
I'm wondering: have you acquainted yourself at all with the people on this forum by reading introductions or previous discussions? Or are you like Dear Francisco that just love-bombed many of us with some kind of New Age nonsense because he figured that anyone who had "left church" must be "ready for truth" as he defined it.
Are you saying, "I have my own religion?" Shouldn't the rest of us find that very scary?
posted
Today's Sep 16, 2007 Worldnetdaily.com has a report on "Church Storm Brews, Mass Defections Looms" which house people may want to look at. Open and disgraceful homosexuality is overtaking much of the IC. We can be sure it is in the home motion as well. Per the Scriptures, it will be big in the ageend. Yes, it is increasingly big in the Christian Church.
posted
WOW THIS LINE OF THOUGHT STARTED WITH CONSIDERATION OF OUR USE OF THE WORD CHURCH, or am I missing something? Wouldn't know how to reply to all the other stuff, but I think we are stuck with this term. It has one advantage, which at least I like, IT IS BRIEF. Rich 1
Email this page to someone.
