Saturday, March 31, 2018

Will The Real Antichrist Please Stand Up.

It seems that many are now claiming that Donald Trump is the antichrist. Before that, it was Obama, and before that it was Clinton, and some have said it is one of the Bushes (I don’t know that it matters which one). Some said it was Reagan, some JFK, some Prince Charles or one of his sons, Prince William or Prince Harry. Some say it is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, or Erdogan, or Putin, or Solana, or any other of a dozen candidates. Some even say it will be Hitler reincarnated or rather brought back from the dead.

While speculation runs rampant, and in and of itself if kept under control there is no problem with speculation, there is a danger in participating in it in a more than speculative way. Herein lies the problem, and I will use a recent episode I experienced to show what that problem is. In the case of the hypothesis that the antichrist is Donald Trump, I had the unfortunate experience of “running into online” shall we say, a person who says he has written a book on Donald Trump (which he was unashamedly hawking in the most overt manner on someone else’s blog). He claimed that unequivocally and without error, Trump is THE antichrist of the Bible, and that he can show Scripturally why that is so. This person boasted repeatedly that no book had ever been written on the antichrist that is anything like his book. (There have been many books, articles, blogs, videos, etc. on the antichrist which he called “pap and drivel”.)

He made the claim that his is unparalleled among other writings and self-promoted his book nearly every other sentence, telling people if they wanted truth, they needed to buy it for they would get the truth nowhere else, yet he claimed to not be in it for the money. He belittled the person who wrote the article (blog) saying that the author didn’t understand Scripture, was wrong (the only thing the author said was that Trump did not Scripturally fit all the aspects of the antichrist and therefore was unlikely to be him), and needed to study the way in which he (the boaster) did. [Note: It so happens that the author of the article is very scholarly, very humble, very circumspect and careful about what he says, and always leaves room for flexibility in what he teaches, so that he does not state anything that cannot be absolutely proven as a fact. He leaves room for his own error in understanding and is extraordinarily patient with people who are nasty to him. I have seen very few prophecy teachers of his excellence.] Further this person was condescending and taunting to others who dared challenge his boasting by using Scripture to point out errors in his assertion, which he then mocked and rejected, patronizing them also, calling himself a martyr (yes, he literally called himself a martyr) for the cause of promoting this “truth.” It was a display of the most obnoxious unChristian arrogance and was very off-putting. He said his path was a lonely one. I have no trouble understanding why. Hopefully no non-Christians will read the article and see his comments for it leaves a bad taste in the mouth for Christians. We all have our moments when unfortunately we lose sight of being loving in our answers, but this went on and on and on. I have run into this same attitude in others who are promoting Trump as the antichrist or other truths which they have come by during their “revelations” through dreams and visions, which bear no resemblance to Scriptural truths. In the case of Trump, their hatred of him is palpable and coupled with this attitude of “I can’t be wrong, because God chose me for special revelation” it creates a serious problem, along with declaring to know truths that nobody can discern from Scripture, as there is not enough information. Speculation is one thing. Declarative truths on the other hand, which cannot be backed up by Scripture is another. It is Satan using Christians to mock God’s Word and other Christians. This should not be.

What I found interesting in the comments written by this person, was that it was not Scripture that he offered as proof (I don’t know what his book offers), but facts like Trump’s mother’s name was Mary, he had an aunt named Elizabeth, and a cousin named John. (I have no idea if that is true or not.) That when he was born there was a “blood moon” (I have no idea if that is true or not also.), and a host of other inane and unimportant data about Trump, none of which has any bearing on the beast, as it is not found in Scripture that these things are a criteria for the antichrist. His reasoning was that since antichrist is a mockery and imitation of Christ that these things mean something. Well, they don’t. They might be interesting facts, but they actually mean nothing concerning the antichrist, as far as Scripturally identifying him goes. I am sure in many families that tend toward using Bible names for their children, and looking at the generation when these names were popular, you will find this a common thing. I have known more Johns in my life than I can even count. And plenty of Marys and Elizabeths as well. It proves nothing. Nor does anyone having a boastful or arrogant personality prove they are the antichrist. That description could be applied to literally thousands of leaders and even applies to the person writing this book. So far out of twenty-four comments, some which were lengthy and supposed to be quotes from his book, he quoted one verse of Scripture. Not exactly a recommendation for his book or his proof.

The reason I am going into such a description of this person's behavior is because we need to be careful to whom we listen and what they are saying and be Bereans. An attitude of arrogant  boastfulness, and mockery should be a red flag at the beginning to make one check what someone says. As I said above, we all sometimes get pushed too far and have our moments, but it should not continue on and on and on. It is true that not all personalities are alike, but when one claims uniqueness in being the only purveyor of God’s truth, it is time for caution. Someone may actually have a new idea on interpretation, which one can check to see if viable, but Scripture is the only truth and it is unlikely that one person, whose knowledge is questionable and who offers coincidences and a lot of talk as proof rather than Scripture, is the only person with truth. Scripture is the only plumb line for what someone says. Interesting but irrelevant facts, biased attitudes, personal feelings, these are not the foundation of good theology. They might provide interesting speculation, but nothing more.

While I have not encountered a lot of people quite as boastful, there seem to be a lot of people out there who feel that they have had a “revelation” from God which then leads them to pick and choose some Scriptures, some out of context even, and apply them to a person of their choosing and then state that they have God’s truth on the matter that this person is the antichrist. This has been going on for 2000 years since Christ left, and to date, nobody has been correct. Why is that?

Well, other than it is not time yet, the thing which I chose to point out to this person was something which he and all these others who claim to have discovered the antichrist seem to miss or simply reject. The Bible, the one place we can look to for the absolute truth on the information on whom the antichrist will be, says that the beast or antichrist comes out of the bottomless pit or abyss. Revelation 11:7And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.” Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.” So it seems that the Bible tells us that the antichrist is not any human being themselves. He is a powerful demonic entity, but not Satan, as some believe. That would explain why he is the eighth head or king, and yet is of the seven. Revelation 17:10-11And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” If the demonic beast inhabited and controlled each of these seven kings, then that would explain how the eighth person could be “of the seven.” The connecting factor between these eight people are that they were (seven were, one will be) all possessed by this beast. He was each one of them. While we may refer to the eight people as their human host (for instance Hitler seems to have been the eighth), the reality is, the person himself is no longer in control. They are not the beast themselves, they simply let him have their bodies as his host.

The truth of the matter is, it is irrelevant whom the person who is possessed is, for that person is not the person in charge of the body. That person no longer exists, so to speak, because the beast will be the person in charge. It matters not whether the person is boastful or powerful or charismatic beforehand, for that person will not be the person who is speaking and acting once the beast takes over. They will merely be the body which the beast uses to do his purposes. He will not be a silent partner. He will be the one who is boasting, who is arrogant, who shakes his fist in God’s face. The descriptions in the Bible belong to him. In Revelation 13:12 it says,And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.The indication is possibly that the person whom the beast inhabits will have been killed and raised from the dead. This might very well indicate that what the beast inhabits is really a corpse which he keeps alive and the person himself is no longer living.

The point here that I am trying to make is this; it could be anybody, for the very character traits which are described in Scripture are the traits of the beast, not necessarily of the person he will possess. Could that person also be like that? Of course. Could it be one of the many candidates listed? Of course. But he, the person he is now, is not the beast. The beast is a demonic entity which will be allowed to come back up out of the abyss where he has been chained for the time being, and he will take over someone’s body. So in pointing to any person on the scene now, and calling them THE antichrist, or the beast, is bearing false witness against them. They may be an antichrist, for there are many antichrists out there, people who are against Christ, but when it comes to the beast, none of them are the actual beast himself. Even if their body gets possessed by the beast, and someone eventually will be, that person himself is not THE antichrist. The beast is the antichrist. The person controlled is the puppet. Without the beast, they could not achieve what will be achieved. They are just a necessary tool for the beast to be incarnated.

So we need to stop pointing fingers and accusing people, no matter how boastful, arrogant, or unlikable they are, nor where they come from, nor their ethnic roots, etc. People need to stop declaring that they have the truth on something which nobody can know for certain at this point in time (and some declare that it is they alone who know for certain due to “revelation” and I have heard this from people who think it is Bush, Kushner, Prince Charles and Solana, not just Trump). If one does put forth a candidate, they must do it with great circumspection and uncertainty and not treat those who disagree with mockery and condescension. That the person he possesses no doubt will have had congress with Satan is probably true, for all of those possessed before the last beast have been ungodly people and to take over someone who is alive, there must be previous interaction with Satan which provides permission for their body to be taken. However, as we cannot know in advance who that might be out of the many people who are ungodly, we need to stop bearing false witness and declaring someone as antichrist so far in advance. When he arrives, we will know it. Then there will be no question in anyone’s mind. And truly, is it important that we know in advance? No. Should we study and know what he will do and how he will act? Yes. So that when he does those things, we will then know who he is presenting himself as. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. His identity will present itself when we see him do the things prophesied in Scripture. But none of those things will happen until we get to the end – to Daniel’s 70th week, and we simply aren’t there yet.

Saturday, March 3, 2018

The Spring Holy Days of the Gentile Christian Church Are Not Scriptural

As I write this, a couple weeks ago the world celebrated Mardi Gras (known by other names in other countries) and Ash Wednesday, then embarked upon Lent leading up to Easter. As many churches celebrate all of these holidays, Catholic and Protestant alike, it is important to take a look at these holidays and see if they are Biblical in nature or not.

Beginning with the first of the holidays in this list, we have Mardi Gras. Mardi is the French word for Tuesday, and gras means “fat.” In France, the day before Ash Wednesday came to be known as Mardi Gras, or “Fat Tuesday.” This name comes in part from the food that was consumed leading up to and including the day. Mardi Gras is a tradition that dates back thousands of years (pre-Christianity) to pagan celebrations heralding the arrival of spring, the hope of fertility, and the renewal of life. In the spring, the god who was so feted was Lupercus and the Romans named this festival "Lupercalia" in his honor. This festival was a raucous, drunken orgy with much merrymaking. It was held in Rome in February after which time the participants would then fast for forty days.  When Christianity arrived in Rome, and pagans converted, they did not want to give up their popular holidays. Think of how modern Christians resist the idea of forsaking Christmas, which has become a very secularized holiday, actually has no Scriptural basis, and in fact is based on a pagan holiday. Nobody wants to do it. It is a fun holiday on which we paste a Christian veneer and the deeply ingrained tradition is not something that people easily want to part with, even if it is not actually Bible based.  Neither did the people of Rome want to give up their holidays. As it seemed impossible to separate the people from their traditions, along with many other compromises such as renaming the pagan statues for Christian "saints" (Zeus became Peter), turning the vestal virgins into nuns, keeping the Babylonian priesthood of the Pontifex Maximus and cardinals, and etc., religious leaders decided to incorporate and Christianize these pagan traditions into the new faith, which was an easier method of transitioning without rebellion than abolishing them altogether. As a result, the debauchery and excesses of  Lupercalia, now renamed Mardi Gras, became a prelude to the newly re-purposed and renamed period of Lent, the 40 days of fasting and penance between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. The period is now said to be in commemoration of Christ's 40 days of fasting in the wilderness (actually Lent is 46 days in length as they don't count the Sundays). As Christianity spread to other European countries and from there to the other continents via missionary work of the church, so did Mardi Gras and its accompanying Lenten period.

Just as today people don masks and costumes (or merely go nude), the Romans also donned masks, dressed in costumes, and indulged in all the depraved carnal pleasures, as they gave themselves to Bacchus (god of wine) and Venus (goddess of love). The purpose of the masks and costumes were to disguise their identities so as to be able to anonymously engage in sexual misconduct, which they normally would not be able to do. Under the "influence of Bacchus," all kinds of debauchery was allowed. Today in New Orleans, they have a celebrity pose as Bacchus for the big parade as all sorts of debauched, depraved, and usually drunken people strut their naked or almost naked bodies,  engaging in lewd behavior and public sexual activities both hetero and homosexual. Woman flashing their naked breasts and crotch, and men their genitals is very common among all the tourists who come for the festivities.

The word carnival, another common name for the pre-Lenten festivities, also derives from this feasting tradition: in Medieval Latin, carnelevarium means to take away or remove meat, from the Latin carnem for meat. Traditionally, in the days leading up to Lent, merrymakers would binge on all the rich, fatty foods—meat, eggs, milk, lard, cheese—that remained in their homes, in anticipation of several weeks of eating only fish and different types of fasting. Hence the name "Fat Tuesday" or in French "Mardi Gras."

While there is more history attached to Mardi Gras, I believe this is enough to show the origins of the festival and the tone it sets.  In New Orleans, January 6 kicks off three things - Twelfth night, Epiphany, and the start of Carnival season which continues up to Mardi Gras. During this time, people live as carnally as possible in anticipation of the six weeks of fasting (whatever they choose to fast, it doesn't have to be food). Then, beginning twelve days before Fat Tuesday, nightly parades are held, which get bigger and more elaborate as the big festival day approaches. These parades are a mix of many things celebrating the sinful pleasures of life. In the final week, festivities intensify in New Orleans and surrounding communities, culminating in the biggest parades. Mardi Gras is so popular that it is accepted as a holiday in some parts of the South. On Mardi Gras, the revelry in New Orleans is non-stop with drunkenness, unbridled sexual activity including people having sex with strangers, and all kinds of perversions. Ash Wednesday is known as Trash Wednesday in New Orleans due to the filthiness of the streets.

The next holiday in this list of spring holy days is Ash Wednesday. This ritual “imposition of the ashes” is purportedly in imitation of the repentant act of covering oneself in dust and ashes as was done in the Bible. While Mardi Gras and Lent started much earlier in the church's history, Ash Wednesday was a later addition to the Christian liturgical calendar, first appearing in the tenth century according to historical records written in the eleventh century. Or rather its Christian practice dates to then. The putting on of ashes on Ash Wednesday goes back to the Norse practice, several hundred years earlier when it was done to celebrate the deeds of Sigurd, the hero of the Volsung Saga, a character perhaps better known as Siegfried from the Ring of the Nibelung.

In the pre-Christian Norse religion, the laying of ashes (ashes being representative of Sigurd), was meant to grant the Norse God Odin’s protection to a Viking warrior in battle. When the Vikings raided coastal towns in western and Mediterranean Europe they brought their beliefs and practices with them, included the laying of ashes on a Wednesday–Odin‘s Day–(another name for Odin is Woden, hence Woden's Day or Wednesday) which the Christian Church appropriated and inserted as a barrier between Mardi Gras and the Lenten period.

Ash Wednesday derives its name from the practice of placing ashes on the foreheads of adherents as a sign of mourning and repentance. This is done in the shape of a cross. It's supposed to be a day of fasting, mourning, and penance. It might have the appearance of godliness, but it's not at all Biblical.  Disfiguring one's face to imply fasting is in direct violation of Christ's directive which was to not disfigure the face but to wash our faces and not let anyone know we are fasting.

"Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.  But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;  That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly." Matthew 6:16-18.

The next thing in this list of liturgical events is Lent. As Lent was officially instituted by the Catholic church, I will let them define its purpose. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “the real aim of Lent is, above all else, to prepare men for the celebration of the death and Resurrection of Christ… One can effectively relive the mystery only with purified mind and heart. The purpose of Lent is to provide that purification by weaning men from sin and selfishness through self-denial and prayer, by creating in them the desire to do God’s will and to make His kingdom come by making it come first of all in their hearts.”

So, according to the Catholic church, the purpose of Lent is to purify ourselves through self-denial and prayer, and make God’s Kingdom come. There are obviously some serious problems with this. First of all, no amount of good works, whether self-denial, prayer, fasting, abstinence, or any other work can purify us from sin. We cannot purify ourselves. Nor will it put within us a desire to do God's will or make God's Kingdom come. The only thing that purifies us is the blood of Jesus Christ. And the only way to receive that is through repentance and confessing Him as the Son of God and our Savior. And God's Kingdom will only come on earth when Christ returns. All of our works are like filthy rags, if we do them through our own efforts. Only those things done through Christ are of any merit, and even those do not grant salvation. They only gain us rewards in heaven, and keep our relationship with God in good standing.

Paul had this to say about self-denial. “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,  (Touch not; taste not; handle not;  Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?  Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.” Colossians 2:20-23.
Lent is a doctrine of men that insists upon denying the flesh for the purpose of purifying yourself. As you cannot purify yourself, what is the point of this type of fast? Fasting is Scriptural, but it seems to be taught that it is in conjunction with prayer, for the purpose of focusing more acutely on the prayer to show God your sincerity and draw you closer to Him. It isn't to show God how you are trying to balance out the sins you have indulged in during Carnival and Mardi Gras through period of self-denial. 

So, where did the observance of Lent come from? We know that the people fasted for 40 days after Lupercalia, but is there an origin older than that from which they got the practice? The Babylonians had a tradition of weeping, fasting, and mourning for Tammuz which is very similar to Lent, and some have speculated that this might be the actual origin of Lent. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel saw a vision about people mourning over Tammuz at the Temple in Jerusalem. "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.  Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." Ezekiel 8:14-15.

It is interesting that one of the Babylonian practices was to cross oneself in the shape of a "T" as a sign of Tammuz. One can see this remnant of Babylonianism in the practice of Catholics crossing themselves when they genuflect. The "T", originally a sign of Tammuz and which is now said to be the sign of the cross, is also the mark put upon people's foreheads when they receive the ashes on Ash Wednesday.

In A.D. 360, the Catholic Church at the Council of Laodicea officially commanded the observance of Lent and the people celebrated Mardi Gras (or whatever name you wish to call it by) to prepare for Lent. So the Roman church established this practice 300 years after Messiah’s death and resurrection. None of these practices have their origins in the Bible. They all seem to have their origins in paganism. And the church commanded the observance of two of these. Ash Wednesday and Lent. The Bible tells us what the commandments of men are to Him. "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7. God sees it all as in vain. It means nothing to Him except to be useless. We should not be adding celebrations that have their origins in paganism to our traditions.

While it is said that Lent is 40 days, in commemoration of Christ, it is actually 46 days. The Sundays are not included. I would like to know why that is. Is it because the original pagan day of Lupercalia was not 40 days before what became Easter, and so to make it fit the timeline, so they could put the Christian veneer over it, they just decided to not count the Sundays? Why of all days would you not fast on the day you go to worship God? (For anyone who follows my blog, you know that I don't believe Sunday is the correct day of worship anyhow. The Sabbath is, but the church celebrates it as if it were the Sabbath.)

While in the beginning people fasted food, which is the only kind of fast that I have found in the Bible, it has devolved into people "fasting" things which are almost meaningless, so that they don't really miss what they "fast." For instance, I know someone who decided to "fast" their online internet games. This person is not Catholic, she is a Protestant (some Protestants do observe this liturgical practice), born again Christian, as far as I know. I cannot understand why she does not see the trivial way she is celebrating it, if she is going to celebrate it. Does she really think that Christ cares about giving up forty days of online games? How exactly is that going to bring her closer to Christ? I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do doubt her discernment.

In his book The Two Babylons, Alexander Hislop says:

"Let any one only read the atrocities that were commemorated during the 'sacred fast' or Pagan Lent, as described by Arnobius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and surely he must blush for the Christianity of those who, with the full knowledge of all these abominations, 'went down to Egypt for help' to stir up the languid devotion of the degenerate church, and who could find no more excellent way to 'revive' it, than by borrowing from so polluted a source; the absurdities and abominations connected with which the early Christian writers had held up to scorn. That Christians should ever think of introducing the Pagan abstinence of Lent was a sign of evil; it showed how low they had sunk, and it was also a cause of evil; it inevitably led to deeper degradation. Originally, even in Rome, Lent, with the preceding revelries of the carnival, was entirely unknown...."

Alexander von Humboldt, a German explorer of the early 19th century wrote of the practice among the pagans in Mexico being held in the spring, the following:

"Three days after the vernal equinox…began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun." The idea of fasting forty days was a common pagan practice that evolved on separate continents. And it was done in honor of the sun in this case. Sun worship is really just another name for worshiping Satan.

It was also celebrated in Egypt, according to John Landseer in his Sabean Researches. He wrote that a period of forty days was held in honor of Osiris. As the Egyptian religion was the descendant of Babylonianism from Nimrod and Semiramis (Tower of Babel), as were the pagan religions of the other countries of the world, we should not be surprised to see this as a common ritual in all of them.

There is a spiritual undertone which indicates the spirit behind these traditions. Christ made it clear in John 4:23-24 how we are to worship. " But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." Riotous debauchery, followed by a pagan practice and mock repentance is not it.  This is no more than ritual religious observance with, for a great majority of its practitioners, no real conviction behind it. It is lacking the vital element required by God. It lacks truth.

In 1 Peter 1:13-16 we are told "Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;  As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;  Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy."

We are not to fashion ourselves after the manner of the pagans or imitate them, but we are to be holy. Being holy means to be set apart and different from the rest of the world. If we are indulging in pagan traditions, which are an abomination to God, how exactly are we being holy?

We have to be very, very careful about taking man-made traditions and elevating them to the level of God-ordained holy days, especially when they have pagan roots. In Matthew 15:3, Christ says, "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"  The Pharisees and scribes had incorporated all kinds of traditions and imposed them on the people. Traditions which not only were unBiblical in origin, but were anti-Biblical in nature. They actually transgressed the laws of God. It is no surprise that Christ seriously objected to this. In the same chapter in verses 6b-9, He said, "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." These traditions make the commandments of God to be of no effect. It renders them null and void. Mark 7:9,13 "And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.....Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."  The consequences of following man-made religious traditions in place of worshiping God in truth is also addressed by Christ.  Matthew 23:15 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."  Traditions are not just harmless rituals. They can actually drive us away from God.

Additionally, God prefers a different kind of fast than one that is strictly ritual and not heartfelt. Isaiah 58:5-7 says, "Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?"
 
Lastly the holy day of Easter has to be addressed. Before even getting into that, the very name itself screams paganism. As much as is known, which is not a great deal, Eostre, or Ostara as she was also known, was a pagan goddess of Germanic origin. Eostre is traced back to a "goddess of the dawn." As the goddess of the dawn, the sunrise was an important part of the celebrations, as were bonfires, eggs, and rabbits for the spring fertility rituals. This goddess was apparently starting to take a back seat when Christianity came along, but as with all things ingrained in a populous, some remnants remained, and the name "Easter" and the associations were added to the paschal season. We have sunrise services, Easter eggs, and chocolate bunnies.

In addition to the above associations, the timing of Easter was decided by the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 to be the first Sunday after the first full moon, after the vernal equinox. If we are to observe the Feast of Firstfruits, which is the correct feast day, which became the resurrection day of Christ when He fulfilled the Feast of Firstfruits, it would be the Sunday after Passover, which is the 15th of Nissan or Aviv, the first month of the ecclesiastical year in Judaism. As the first of the month is determined by the new moon, and the new moon is two weeks away from the full moon, the 15th of the month would end up being in the relative same time frame as the full moon. And as the month of Nissan falls in the spring, it would also fall around the vernal equinox. So it is common that Passover and Easter fall around the same time, and most often fall in the same week, but the factors determining the dates are not the same, so there can be times when they do not fall at the same time.

Passover is determined by God's instructions. Easter is determined by association with the occult importance of the vernal equinox and full moon. They just happen to coincide most of the time. When it happens that they do not, because Judaism often inserts an extra month in their calendar every so many years, Easter does not fall on the Feast of Firstfruits. Easter's date of observance therefore has more to do with the pagan celebration of Eostre than the Feast of Firstfruits. This is not the way it should be. As the resurrection was the fulfillment of the Feast of Firstfruits, it should always occur on the Sunday after Passover. So are we celebrating a day which is not always really the right day? And should we be celebrating Passover as a part of this instead of ignoring it as a Jewish holiday? What does the Word of God say on the issue.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:  Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth."  Exactly what feast is Paul speaking about? Easter was not a feast that the disciples celebrated. Passover was the feast they celebrated. And it seems that Paul is telling us to keep the feast - the feast of Passover - for the reference is that Christ is our passover.  Is the day of resurrection also to be celebrated? As it already existed as a feast day in Judaism - the Feast of Firstfruits, yes, it is also to be celebrated. But we have forgotten to celebrate Passover, relegating it to the trash as a Jewish holy day, not a Christian one. Instead we celebrate Good Friday (if you can call it celebrating), which even in that there is dispute that Jesus died on Friday, as that does not allow for three days and nights in the grave. It would be much better for us to celebrate Passover which contains all the significance of His death on the cross.

When Christ ate the Last Supper with the disciples, He was celebrating the Passover seder. When He picked up the cup and said "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins," He was actually renaming the third cup that is drunk in the Passover Seder - the cup known as the Cup of Redemption. (There are four cups, each with a different meaning.) When He broke the bread and ate it, He was breaking the bread known as the afikomen (see note below on afikomen). Both are important parts of the seder meal. What He was doing was re-purposing and renaming two of the Passover elements, not creating a new tradition with all the other elements removed. It was the same tradition, but with new meaning. Men are the ones who have changed the tradition by removing those two things from their original source. We have lost much of the meaning and significance of what He did and said at the Passover by removing those two elements from the seder and making them a la carte. He said that when we drank the cup (the cup of redemption of the Passover) and when we ate the bread (of afikomen), we were to do so in remembrance of Him. But people don't realize that it is the Cup of Redemption and they don't know the bread is the bread of the afikomen and what those two things mean within the seder.

[Afikomen- during the Passover seder, three pieces of matzoh are placed in a bag with three compartments. At a point early in the seder, the middle piece of matzoh is taken out and broken in half. Half is put back in the bag, and the other half is wrapped in a linen cloth and hidden or buried to be found (resurrected) later in the seder. When searched for and found, the matzoh is broken into pieces for the guests at the seder to share and is eaten. To the Jews, this is a ritual for which they really don't have an explanation, but as Christians we can see the significance. The three pieces of matzoh stand for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The middle matzoh, the Son, is taken out and broken (for our sins) and it is wrapped in a cloth and "buried." When found (resurrected) it is eaten by those celebrating the Passover. This is the ritual that Christ observed with the disciples when He broke the bread and said, "Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you."]

Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." As often as we drink the Cup of Redemption from the Passover seder and as often as we partake of the afikomen, we do so in remembrance of Him, which means, we were expected to continue to observe the Passover, but in a Messianic way, the way Christ did at the last Passover. And then we were to observe the Feast of Firstfruits in remembrance of Christ being the firstfruit of the resurrection. This is the way it was intended for us to celebrate Christ's death and resurrection. How much more deeply significant is spending the time at a Passover observance going through the Scriptures, singing songs, and partaking of the lengthy seder meal with all of its meanings, instead of celebrating with an Easter basket full of eggs and bunnies and going to a church service. Look at what we have lost. The most moving celebration I ever had at this time of year was when I partook of a Messianic Passover seder. And one does not serve ham (which was an unclean animal and therefore not acceptable to the Jews) at a Passover seder. The meat of choice is Lamb, for the Lamb of God. Even the meat has a spiritual significance which we have abandoned in favor of serving one of the forbidden meats of the Old Testament. Considering that the meat has spiritual application, what does it say that many Christians serve it on Easter in place of Lamb?


That the early church, before Rome changed so many of the traditions by compromising them with paganism, celebrated Passover can be seen in this passage from The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. He wrote: “The festival, of which we read in Church history, under the name of Easter, in the third or fourth centuries, was quite a different festival from that now observed in the Romish Church, and at that time was not known by any such name as Easter…That festival [Passover] was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. ‘It ought to be known,’ said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive [New Testament] Church with the Church in his day, ‘that the observance of the forty days had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive Church remained inviolate.’” Not only was Lent was not observed by the first century Church, it would appear that Passover was the feast that was observed, not Easter.

As can be seen with all the information above, the holidays that the Church celebrates in no way can claim origin in the Scriptures (except for celebrating the resurrection). We have abandoned God's feasts in favor of pagan ones with a Christian overlay. Does God care? Too many Christians think that He does not, as long as they themselves want to believe the rituals are okay. I do not think that God takes sincerity (which is the excuse) into account. Uzzah was sincere when he tried to catch the ark of the covenant from falling off the wagon. God killed him for disobedience. Nadab and Abihu were sincere when they offered the wrong kind of incense on the fire. God killed them for disobedience. There seems to be a pattern here. Sincerity did not count. Obedience and adherence to God's ways seems to be what God cares about. Ritual, and especially ritual with no real heart repentance is meaningless to God. Hear what He has to say to Israel when they acted in this way, and they were observing the rituals that God had created for them, not pagan ones with a phony godly veneer over them. We should look at their punishments and heed the lesson.

Isaiah 1:11-14, 16-20 "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them......Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.  If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:  But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."