ChristmasIsALie.com

THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

THE CHRISTMAS LIE

INTRO    THE STORY    THE REASON     THE CHRIST     THE MASS    THE SAINT    THE WISEMEN    THE TREE    THE CHURCH     THE GOSPEL    THE MAGIC   THE SPIRIT     THE JOY     THE SCROOGE     YES VIRGINIA    THE GRINCH   THE WAR

THE MASS OF "CHRIST" MASS

THE "MASS" OF "CHRIST-MASS" is a central calendar observance of  the Roman Mass.  A practice started out of intense anti-Semitic hatred of Jews, openly confessed by the Nicene Council, and created as a substitute for the Passover Seder commanded by the REAL CHRIST. The real Christ admittedly never had anything to do with a Roman Mass and not only observed the Seder meal, but commanded his disciples to do so as well. The Mass, established as a counter to the Passover, after which [though celebrated by followers of Christ for centuries] was actually outlawed as a crime against the state of Rome.  The Mass is the ritualistic killing of an enemy of Rome at Saturnalia, and it's observance is STILL practiced as the killing of Christ to this day. CHRIST-MASS is actually not "celebrating his birth".  It is "celebrating" his execution Rome itself conducted, and scapegoated Jews on behalf of, in a doctrine called "blood liable", whom it then blamed (while it finished exterminating his actual Jewish family).  The "Christ" Mass was also the official institutional rejection  by Rome, of the very blood and body of THE REAL CHRIST who was born of Jewish flesh, and in form, if not letter, the New Testament version of the "Abomination of Desolation".  CHRIST-MASS itself is the cloaking of the high holy day of the Roman Empire, THE SOLAR-MASS, patterned ritualistically as a form of magic, for the purpose of Imperial Emperor worship and the ancient Roman solar-deity assigned to his personal success in subjugating the Empire.

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ROMAN SOLAR "MASS" CALLED "CHRIST-MASS"

SAVING THE PAGANS OR DAMNING THE CHRISTIANS?




"Pope Gregory advised Saint Augustine to allow his converts certain festivals...as Formerly they had done this in Honor of the DEVIL... Saint Augustine permitted their usual December celebration under the new name...From these early pagan ceremonies are derived many of the English holiday customs that have survived to our day." 
- The Evolution of Christmas; 
     Published in 1909

SAVING THE PAGANS OR DAMNING THE CHRISTIANS?



If Rome's Pontiff Maximus, changed the name of Heroin to Christ... would that magically turn all the Heroin addicts into "Christians" filled with "Christ" in their veins?  What if then after changing the name of Heroin to "Christ", you required everyone to become Heroin addicts to "be saved"?  (Since it was now "Christ")   Most people would laugh at the claim.  Yet they will attempt to argue it's exact parallel with the Roman Solar-mass to Apollyon as a "Christ" mass, with a straight face, never realizing the same deluded logic is at play.  Rome's "Christ" - Mass is nothing more than a masking over of old Roman Devil worship, with the 'wink" of a fictitious Santa's eye.  "Christians" have been told a number of lies to accomplish this amazing feat of seduction and deception, and they are all very easily transparent to anyone who is willing to honestly take a look at them.  For example, one lie that is very popular to repeat for pseudo-evangelical Nicolaitans, is that all these customs dedicated to Satanic "Sun" worship, were "Christianized" to "save pagans".  But that was 17 centuries ago.  News flash: pagans aren't being "converted" anymore because they see Christians worshiping the Sun (as if they ever were to begin with).  





The claim is so patently absurd, it is downright offensive to anyone except the gleefully deluded.  If you said your wife had to commit prostitution in a German death camp to save someone's life, who could honestly stand in judgement? Faith is a gift, and perhaps you didn't have any?  But if that happened 50 years ago, and your wife is still an active Prostitute, with no threat to life, or any continued reason to be doing it, the claim would be met with laughter and a shake of the head, that such a lie would even be expected to be believed.  Add to that injury the insult, that in your prostitution, you claim to be the only true infallible "representative of Christ and God on EARTH", it zooms way past humorous, to complete insanity.  Such is the case with this claim about "saving people", by instituting all their customs of worshiping Satan and enforcing this devilish stew BY LAW on THE ENTIRE ROMAN EMPIRE.  And it was Satan. That is simply the plain historical and Biblically theological fact of the matter.  Any idiot who can read a Bible, much less look up the words in their original Greek and Hebrew language fully knows this to be the case, including the Nicolaitans in the Vatican and her prodigal Masonic lodges.







QUOTE: The church is little known today, but at the time it was one of the most important basilicas for Christians in Rome, Carandini said. Placing the church just a few steps from an important pagan shrine was part of Constantine's strategy of promoting Christianity while linking it to the practices of the more ancient religion...The church was built to christianize these pagan places of worship," Carandini said. "It was normal to put a church near these places to try to 'save' them." END QUOTE






"Worship" is not defined by what you are thinking in your head while you perform a ritual.  It is the ritual itself.  That is how it is defined both in the English dictionary... AND even in the Bible itself.  Worship in the scripture, has no reference to what you are personally thinking.  The very word itself references AN ACT!  The ACT is WORSHIP.  Not the thoughts floating around in your head.  Deceiving people into THE ACT OF WORSHIP, has a very long history in the ancient world.  And though deceived into it, the ACT was still considered to be every bit as real, as if there had been reasoned consent.  Being decieved into the worship of other gods is written about as far back as 500 - 1500 BCE in the TORAH ITSELF.


Deu 11:16  Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, 
and serve other gods, and worship them




The word used here is ה (Pronounced "shâchâh", "shaw-khaw'") And is a primitive root; that means TO DEPRESS, that is, TO PROSTRATE, TO BOW, TO STOOP, all of which are without excpetions ACTS.  If you "Think about Jeeeesus" while you "BOW TO SATAN", what you thought in your head is literally irrelevant to the definition of what you just did.  There is NO REFERNCE TO IT, in the definition of WORSHIP, which is AN ACT.  The definition in the NEW TESTAMENT GREEEK is virtually NO DIFFERENT.


DECEIVED INTO WORSHIPING THE DEVIL
(BECAUSE WORSHIP IS AN ACT, NOT A THOUGHT)


In the New Testament, the word "WORSHIP" is προσκυνέω (pronounced "proskuneō", "pros-koo-neh'-o",  (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, prostrate oneself in homage.  Once again, every term in it's description is purely a reference to an ACT, not what you have floating around in your head while you do it.  Understanding this definition is very important because this is the same definition that all those Latin Roman Theologians Rome likes to quote were looking at, when they came up with the idea that if "Christians" DO the ACT of worshipping Satan, they are "Christianizing" the pagan Roman "Satanists".  You see why this is SO laughable? THE ACT is THE WORSHIP. And  you CAN BE DECIEVED INTO IT, AND IT IS STILL WORSHIPPING SATAN!  If this were not true, there would be literally scores of texts in the Bible, there would be no way to explain.  Speaking on this very subject:

Rev 19:20  And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had (1) received the mark of the beast, and them that (2) worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. [Note two separate groups; 1. Receives the mark 2. worships his image, the second group does not receive the mark, but they do worship the image. Both are condemned to the "Lake of Fire" they worshiped (Apollyon/the sun-god. Re.9:11)]

Rev 20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 

Rev 18:23  And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. (In order for "all nations" to be "deceived" it must be a ritual "All nations" do. That is precisely the case for Rome's Solar-mass to Apollyon as a "Christ" mass, celebrated by every nation on earth, including Atheist countries like China, N.Korea and Cuba)

If what you have in YOUR HEAD is the only thing that matters, when you participate in a RITUAL ACT, these conditions of DECEPTION, and BEING DECEIVED INTO WORSHIPING SATAN would not BE POSSIBLE.  And THESE TEXTS could never have been WRITTEN.  Do you UNDERSTAND?


WHO THE DEVIL IS THAT IN THAT FIREBALL?



Who/What is this ROMAN DEVIL worshipped on December 25th? In the Roman Solar-Mass?  The same one it's always been since the writing of the New Testament.  in fact, it's even mentioned BY NAME in the New Testament, so very little "Guess work" has to be done about it, even though nobody in Rome likes to talk about all this, nor likes anyone else doing it too much either.  The NAME of the DEVIL Rome is honoring on December 25th by decieving people into worshipping it, by engaging in the ACT of homage to it's SOLAR-MASS, is APOLLYON (APOLLO).  In the New Testament, his name is given in 3 different language systems to MAKE SURE YOU CAN'T MISS IT ! THREE ! AND THEY STILL DON'T READ IT?


Rev 9:11  And they had as king over them (1) the angel of the abyss, whose name in the (2) Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the (3) Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. RSV



(1) ANGEL OF THE ABYSS: Abyss means "Place of the DEAD" (Which is precisely what the catacombs were)

(2) In Hebrew ABBADON: Prince of "Demons" (a/k/a Azazel - Meaning "Dismissal") literally present as Krampus, designated by a "+" mark on the forehead, as the "goat destined to fall away". Done literally at the Vernal Equinox mass during "Lent".

(3) In Greek APOLLYON: Literally, Apollon, in Rome: Apollo. Whose birth was celebrated on December 25th, in a libation, that is now a "Mass" (the word "Mass" literally meaning "DISMISSAL" /  the same as in the term AZAZEL)









THE ANGEL OF THE ABYSS/ABADDON/APOLLYON



INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA
Abyss, The
a-bis´, (ἡ ἄβυσσος, hē ábussos): In classical Greek the word is always an adjective, and is used (1) literally, “very deep,” “bottomless”; (2) figuratively, “unfathomable,” “boundless.” “Abyss” does not occur in the King James Version but the Revised Version (British and American) so transliterates ἄβυσσος, ábussos in each case. The King James Version renders the Greek by “the deep” in two passages (Luk_8:31; Rom_10:7). In Revelation the King James Version renders by “the bottomless pit” (Rev_9:1, Rev_9:2, Rev_9:11; Rev_11:7; Rev_17:8; Rev_20:1, Rev_20:3). In the Septuagint abussos is the rendering of the Hebrew word תּהום, tehō̄m̌. ...The Septuagint never uses abussos as a rendering of שׁאול, she'ōl (= Sheol = Hades) and probably tehōm never meant the “abode of the dead” which was the ordinary meaning of Sheol. In Psa_71:20 tehōm is used figuratively, and denotes “many and sore troubles” through which the psalmist has passed (compare Jon_2:5). But in the New Testament the word abussos means the “abode of demons.” In Luk_8:31 the King James Version renders “into the deep” (Weymouth and The Twentieth Century New Testament = “into the bottomless pit”). The demons do not wish to be sent to their place of punishment before their destined time. Mark simply says “out of the country” (Mar_5:10). In Rom_10:7 the word is equivalent to Hades, the abode of the dead. In Revelation (where the King James Version renders invariably “the bottomless pit”) abussos denotes the abode of evil spirits, but not the place of final punishment; it is therefore to be distinguished from the “lake of fire and brimstone” where the beast and the false prophet are, and into which the Devil is to be finally cast (Rev_19:20; Rev_20:10).









THE DEITY THAT IS SYNONYMOUS WITH "THE LAKE OF FIRE": SATAN
ROME'S "CHRIST" IN "CHRIST-MASS"


ALL THREE REFERENCES SPECIFY THE SAME IMPERIAL DEITY BORN ON THE SOLSTICE (SOL INVICTUS/APOLLO/MITHRAS) AND HONORED IN A RITUAL SOLAR-MASS (LIBATION) AS THE FALSE CHRIST, OF THE ANTICHRIST!  Now how are  you going to miss that? Just pretend you didn't see anything, or PRETEND you have no clue what it is talking about?  This DEVIL, was the one honored on December 25th through THE ACT of a RITUAL WORSHIP Rome's Pope Sixtus III, literally 666, forced upon the WORLD (Worship IS a RITUAL, not what you think).  That Rome replaced the Christ of the Bible for it's own Solar-Diety given the title "Christ" is one of the best documented facts of ROMAN HISTORY.  In fact, it is SO documented, the famous secular historian Edward Gibbons, who wrote about it extensively in the classic history DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, included in Britannica's Greatest Books of the Western World series, was actually placed on their INDEX OF FORBIDDEN BOOKS, to KEEP PEOPLE FROM FINDING OUT ABOUT IT!  So there is virtually NO WAY you can pretend "Ooops, looky there! Who knew???"  






THE POPE IS GOD THEREFORE 
WORSHIPING WHATEVER HE TELLS YOU, IS WORSHIPING HIM 

Why does Rome not care what it is?  Well, from the perspective of Roman theology, which teaches the Pope is GOD, nothing the Pope ever does is wrong, including worship the devil. So in Catholic thought, if the Pope told you to worship the devil, you would because worshiping the devil would not be worshiping the devil unless the Pope said it was the devil, and then you should still do it anyway.  In other words, as a Catholic, you worship the Pope.

This question has been asked numerous times, in debates with Catholics, "If the Pope told you to worship the Devil, would you do it"?  This question never gets an answer! The reason of course, in Catholic theology, is that this question points to a conflict that is theoretically impossible for a Catholic. The short theoretical answer is yes absolutely, per Ignatius Loyola's own "spiritual exercises", but it is an answer most Catholics cannot bring themselves to voice openly or admit to a Protestant, recognizing the extreme Papal self-reference to be an indefensible position.  Protestants however, and certainly any that claim to have any literacy with the Scriptures in the least, should have no problem saying no to that proposition, 

.... but the odd thing is that Protestants (led by their worthless apostate ministers) are standing in line, to do precisely that, completely oblivious to the reasons why no Protestant in his right mind, should ever have anything to do with it.



BAAL WORSHIP WAS ABOUT YOUR WORSHIP (NOT YOUR THOUGHTS)

WHO DO YOU QUOTE CONCERNING CHRISTMAS?
MY PREACHER SAID?.. OR THE SCRIPTURES SAY?

My Preacher Said: "If you go to church as a mere ritual, while your real motivation is to meet girls, are you worshiping God? Of course not, because your HEART isn't in it! Likewise, if a celebration includes a few rituals that were once used by pagan worshipers, it does NOT automatically mean you are worshiping that pagan god, especially if your heart is completely devoted to something else like celebrating Christ. "

Your minister's disagreement over the definition of "worship" is not with this site, but with the Bible he claims to follow, because the Bible teaches people are "deceived" into worshiping the devil. "Deceived" means they do not know they are doing it (so it certainly is not "intentional"). 

Rev 19:20  And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 


The same warning was given in the OT:

Deu_11:16 Take heed to yourselves, that your heart be not deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;

"Decieved" means you do not realize that is what you are doing.

Worship is an "Act", not a "thought", and if it were not so, then Christ could have "bowed down to Satan" (and simply thought something else in his head) and he would have (1) gained the kingdoms of the world AND (2) not "worshipped" Satan. The ACT of bowing down to him, WAS the "worship" (an act, not a thought)
Mat 4:9 and saith to him, `All these to thee I will give, if falling down thou mayest bow to me.' (Young's Literal)

Worship:(Definition) 2: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : AN ACT of expressing such reverence 3: A FORM of religious practice with its creed and RITUAL - Merriam Webster

BIBLICAL DEFINITION προσκυνέω proskuneō pros-koo-neh'-o From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence ) 
[All references to "Acts" not "Thoughts"]



BAAL TOOK ON THE NAMES OF THE GODS HE CONQUERED
THE SUN-GOD

As the Sun-god, Baal was worshipped under two aspects, beneficent and destructive. On the one hand he gave light and warmth to his worshippers; on the other hand the fierce heats of summer destroyed the vegetation he had himself brought into being. Hence, human victims were sacrificed to him in order to appease his anger in time of plague or other trouble, the victim being usually the first-born of the sacrificer and being burnt alive. In the Old Testament this is euphemistically termed “passing” the victim “through the fire” (2Ki_16:3; 2Ki_21:6). The forms under which Baal was worshipped were necessarily as numerous as the communities which worshipped him. Each locality had its own Baal or divine “Lord” who frequently took his name from the city or place to which he belonged. Hence, there was a Baal-Zur, “Baal of Tyre”; Baal-hermon, “Baal of Hermon” (Jdg_3:3); Baal-Lebanon, “Baal of Lebanon”; Baal-Tarz, “Baal of Tarsus.” At other times the title was attached to the name of an individual god; Thus we have Bel-Merodach, “the Lord Merodach” (or “Bel is Merodach”) at Babylon, Baal-Melkarth at Tyre, Baal-gad (Jos_11:17) in the north of Palestine. Occasionally the second element was noun as in Baal-Shemaim, “lord of heaven,” Baalzebub (2Ki_1:2), “Lord of flies,” Baal-Hammān, usually interpreted “Lord of heat,” but more probably “Lord of the sunpillar,” the tutelary deity of Carthage. All these various forms of the Sun-god were collectively known as the Baalim or “Baals” who took their place by the side of the female Ashtaroth and Ashtrim. At Carthage the female consort of Baal was termed Penē-Baal, “the face” or “reflection of Baal.” - ISB Encyclopedia

DECEIVED INTO WORSHIPING SATAN

Initially, the term Baal was considered a generic term for "God" until the common terminology began to be used as a political tool to assimilate "Baal Worship" during the time of Jezebel.  Afterwards, Jews whose names had been suffixed with the term Bel and Baal, changed their names to the Hebrew word for "Shame" and "Humiliation" for being "Seduced" into apostacy.  In the New Testament, and among early Christians, "Baal" became universally understood among the Biblically orthodox (those apart from gnostics) as an Old Testament synonym for SATAN.


In the Middle-east (in Biblical contexts) when "Baal" conquered a deity, it "took the name" of that deity, but the "worship rituals" were changed to conform to "Baal worship" rituals. That is why despite the fact that archeology has shown the "Bamah Houses" were dedicated to "YHVH" and according to apostate Jews, was being worshiped in the "Bamah houses" (Trans., "High places"), the prophets still called it "Baal worship" (because it was the "worship" of Baal, even if it wasn't supposedly "Baal" who was being worshiped) If I worship YHVH, "Baal's Way", it was "Baal worship".

When the Pope took a ritual which was known to be the worship of the Devil, and simply said;"Nah, we will call it "Christ", and it will be the "worship of Christ from that day forward", even if these intentions were totally innocent, the Bible still condemns this syncretism as "devil worship" for the same reasons mentioned above, But that Papal substitution wasn't even all that innocent. It intentionally mixed Sol Invictius/Apollo with "Christ" to create a new "Roman" synthesis (on purpose).

That "new Roman synthesis" was not "Christ". It was a Roman fabrication, a lie, and it was not authorized by the "Christ" they claim to be "following". Evidence of that fact is found throughout the New Testament, where the very origin of this "synthesis" [Dec. 25th] was condemned as "Nicolaitanism". Nicolaitanism was said to be something the risen Christ "Hated", and it's followers were "damned" (unless they repented), because they were embracing a "false Christ". [this is very serious]

The fact Protestant ministers today just hide all this for political reasons, doesn't change what it is (it's spiritual nature), nor the Biblical truths that condemn it. What's the point of pretending to be a "Christian" if you just willfully choose to reject what Christ (and his real apostles) really taught? Why not just go be a Buddhist? Or a New Ager? & just make up stuff the way you like it? That's precisely what the Roman Church did. No one following Christ would accept this kind of fraud.



IT WAS THE "ACT" NOT THE "THOUGHT"

SATAN WANTED


Mat 4:8,9  Again doth the Devil take him to a very high mount, and doth shew to him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them, and saith to him, `All these to thee I will give, 
IF FALLING DOWN THOU MAYEST BOW TO ME.'  
- YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION

If what your "Preacher" has told you is true, Christ was an idiot, because according to your Preacher, Christ could have simply physically "Bowed" to Satan, thus pleasing Satan (but thought about "worshiping God" in his head, thus remaining sinless and faithful to God!) And he would have never had to go to the cross and die, just like Satan suggested.  Isn't that strange that SATAN and YOUR PREACHER are giving the same Advice?
[So either your Preacher is a Satanic liar, or Christ is just a fool]

There is absolutely no instruction given to Christ by Satan about what "thought" was "required" in his head to do this, because NONE was necessary, and NO THOUGHT WOULD INVALIDATE HIS CAPITULATION
NO MATTER HOW "RELIGIOUS" IT MAY HAVE BEEN


YOUR PREACHER INSULTS THE MARTYRDOM
OF MILLIONS OF FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS THROUGHOUT HISTORY
WHO DIED HORRIFIC DEATHS
FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN THEY WOULD "NOT BOW" TO WHAT YOU NOW
CALL "CELEBRATING CHRIST"
[WHICH IS AN ACT, NOT A THOUGHT]

IF YOUR PREACHER TOLD YOU THESE LIES, HE IS NOT SAVED FROM ANYTHING.
AND JUST BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO HELL, DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO GO THERE WITH HIM!


THE "MASS" IN "CHRIST-MASS"



THE DEFINITION OF "CHRISTMAS"


CHRIST·MAS 
Pronunciation: \ˈkris-məs\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English Christemasse, from Old English Cristes mæsse, literally, Christ's mass
Date: before 12th century
1 : a Christian feast on December 25 or among some Eastern Orthodox Christians on January 7 that commemorates the birth of Christ and is usually observed as a legal holiday

MASS
Pronunciation: \ˈmas\
Function: noun
Middle English, from Old English mæsse, modification of Vulgar Latin *messa, literally, dismissal at the end of a religious service, from Late Latin missa, from Latin, feminine of missus, past participle of mittere
TO SEND
Date: before 12th century
1.capitalized : the liturgy of the Eucharist especially in accordance with the traditional Latin rite
2.often capitalized : a celebration of the Eucharist <Sunday masses held at three different hours>

From

MISSAL - Pertaining to the Roman Catholic Mass, from MISS, and MISS*A related to MISS*LE (Literally Gifts the Roman Emperor would throw at the crowds to engender Ceasar Worship) and MISS*ION (Motive, Objective, Reason, Assignment, Task, Duty or Purpose)





ROME'S "CHRIST" MASS


The "Christ" mass is more than a single day of the year.  It is part of an entire liturgical calendar that centers around "The Advent".  The "Advent" of course being the "coming" or "incarnation" of what is being called "Christ", that being of course, the "coming" of the "sun".(The birth of the sun)  Merging the definition of the Jewish messiah with the rites and rituals of pagan sun worship, not only changes the definition of "Christ", but it changes the object of worship, which is no longer God, but the sun-god.  

If one "accepts" Rome's equivalence vocabulary, that it's ritual on December 25th is the "Christ" MASS, as in "Eucharist" or "Communion" or "Cup" or "Table", what we are discussing is ROME'S substitution for what was DESCRIBED in the SCRIPTURES as THE REAL "CUP" of CHRIST.  The REAL CUP of of Christ, said to be his BLOOD and his FLESH was not a MASS at all. In fact, it wasn't even a Eucharist, or really a "communion" service, although the second of the two terms are found around it and occuring in conjunction with it, "Eucharist" meaning "giving of Thanks" which is certianly done, but not what it is, and "communion" being what is is said to be doing, but not is either.

So why are all these beat around the bush Euphemisms employed to describe something that is overtly and conspiciously described repetitvely by another term? Well because, Nicolaitans decided they didn't like that other term, in fact they didn't even like that other thing, much less it's term.  But that other thing is what Christ called his "Blood" and his "Flesh", not a MASS in Rome.  In fact, the very term "Mass" is a prophetic mark concerning the "Cup" of the Antichrist in the Scirpture. (And by "MARK" we are talking as literal as literal could possibly be)





THE ROMAN MASS: SACRIFICIAL ATONEMENT OR THE "MARK" OF THE BEAST?

Lev 16:5-10  And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house.  Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.  And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel

This word is found in connection with the ceremony of the Day of Atonement (which see). According to Lev_16:8, Aaron is to cast lots upon the two goats which on the part of the congregation are to serve as a sin offering (Lev_16:5), “one lot for Yahweh, and the other lot for Azazel.” In Lev_16:10, after the first goat has been set apart as a sin offering for Yahweh, we read: “But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be set alive before Yahweh, to make atonement for him, to send him away for Azazel into the wilderness.” In Lev_16:26 we read: “And he that letteth go the goat for Azazel shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water.” Before this, in Lev_16:21 f mention had been made of what should be done with the goat. After the purification of the (inner) sanctuary, of the tent of meeting, and of the altar, the living goat is to be brought, “and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all ... their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of 

the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.” In this way the essential thought in Lev 16 as also in Lev 14 seems to be the removal of the animal in either case, and it is accordingly advisable to interpret Azazel adjectively, i.e. to forego finding a complete parallelism in Lev_16:8, and to regard the preposition in connection with Yahweh as used differently from its use with Azazel, and to translate as follows: “And Aaron shall cast lots over both goats, the one lot [i.e. for the one goat for Yahweh, and one lot for the goat that is destined to go far away.” ...the Septuagint translators who translate apopompaı́os, diestalménos, and also to that of Aquilos, who translates trágos apoluómenos, apoleluménos, kekrataiōménos, and of Symmachus who translates aperchómenos, aphieménos. (The general idea expressed by all these words is “removal,” “sending away,” “releasing” or “dismissal.”) [Note: Same meaning as the word "Mass"]  The actions in connection with Azazel, as was also the case with the Day of Atonement, were interpreted more fully by the Talmud and the traditions based on it (compare ATONEMENT, DAY OF, III, 2). The lots could be made of different materials; in later times they were made of gold. The manner of casting the lots was described in full. The goat that was to be sent into the wilderness was designated by a black mark on the head, the other by one on the neck. On the way from Jerusalem to the wilderness, huts were erected. From a distance it was possible to see how the goat was hurled backward from a certain cliff, called Beth-Hadûdû (Bēth-ḥudêdûn, 12 miles East of Jerusalem). By means of signals made with garments, news was at once sent to Jerusalem when the wilderness had been reached. - ISBE




THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST

 

THE JEWISH PASSOVER

 

Exo 12:14 And this day [PASSOVER SEDER] shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance FOREVER.

 

THE REAL LORD'S SUPPER

 

           

Mat 26:19,20,26-28 

And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the PASSOVER.  Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS  MY BODY. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;  For THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Luk 22:19,20 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you: THIS DO [NOTE: PASSOVER SEDER] IN REMEMBERANCE OF MELikewise also the cup after supper, saying, THIS CUP [THE SEDER CUP] is THE NEW TESTAMENT in MY BLOOD, which is shed for you. 





THE SMOKING GUN

 

THE ORIGIN OF THE EUCHARIST

325 AD COUNCIL OF NICEA-

 

It is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people...We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews...our worship follows a...more convenient course...we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews...How, then, could we follow these Jews - Source: Religious Tolerance.org (Jewish Persecution)


TRANSLATION:

We don't care what Jesus said, we are not about to insult ourselves by acting like a bunch of stinking Jews on Passover.


Antisemitism plain and simple straight from the mouth of the Nicene council.  Such intense Antisemitism it even repudiates and denies the very ethnicity of the one they claim to be following.




COMPARE:

Eph 2:12-14  

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one

With:

“We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews

We desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews

 

PEACE ON EARTH, GOOD WILL TOWARD MEN?

Would that be Jewish or non-Jewish men?

 

1Jo 2:18-19  Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, … They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

BEAR NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE "TRUE CHRIST"

THERE IS NO CONNECTION


"There can be no two things more different than the celebration of the Lord's Supper in a Christian home in the first century and in a cathedral in the twentieth century. The things are so different it is almost possible to say that they bear no relationship to each other whatsoever." WILLIAM BARCLAY, THE LORD'S SUPPER, P. 132, Del Birkey


Though this observation is made by William Barclay, whom most consider a fairly conservative theologian, on the other end of the theological spectrum Paul Tillich made virtually the same observation concerning the modern Church in general, without respect to the singular issue of the Cathedral communion or Eucharist rituals.


The fact is theologians know precisely how and where these changes arose, and rather than spend their time persuading people to return to the original practices of the early ecclesia documented in the New Testament, they spend virtually all their time building arguments of logic and innuendo justifying the known and rather dramatic departures.  (As though the departure is superior in some respect to what Christ actually intended and commanded?)  And of course, if their argumentations and logically innuendos are fully correct, there would obviously be no point in continuing the pretense of belief in "Christ", anymore than in Buddha, the Dali Lama,  or the Emperor of Japan.


Yes, the theologians are correct. It is not only possible to say there is no relationship, it's quite factual. There is none.  And that should concern anyone who has chosen Christ as their example, or teacher, or inspiration, or certainly as their "Lord and savior" in life to follow.  To the extent it does not, is the same extent to which you as a religious consumer can rest assured you have been conned by the fraud of an impostor, selling you a worthless synthetic substitute for 10% of your annual salary.


To the extent which you believe the Mass, Communion, Eucharist, Love feast, Love fest, Woodstock, or whatever other name you wish to christen the rubber life boat you think has some mysterious efficacious powers toward either your sanctification or salvation, in drinking Welchade from a little plastic thimble, or Roman goblet during the birth of the sun, to that same extent you will be dissappointed to discover the rubber life boat is flammable, and the lake it is floating on, is one of fire.


Not that it should concern you, because it doesn't concern your religious leader in the least either, who obviously doesn't think it actually really matters, except when it comes to convincing outsiders they need a spiritual ticket to ride in his eternal rubber flammable boat.  Since it doesn't bother him, it shouldn't bother you, and if you do not believe this, just ask him to explain it to you, and he will be more than happy to do so.  After all, that is why you are paying him 10% of your annual salary anyway, to explain to you all the reasons why it is good and proper to disobey the one you claim to be following.  And you need to feel confident that that is precisely what he is spending most of his entire study day doing in his little office on your behalf, just for you, and your 10% contribution.  Despite this grotesque crack in the nuclear core of the phony religion they are all peddling, you have nothing to worry about.  Your 10% is after-all, tax deductible.




IT WASN'T REALLY PASSOVER ???



THE EMBARRASSING GOSPEL TRUTH

Christmas alone, is accompanied by the orchestrated industry and commerce in upwards of 4 billion dollars a year (SOURCE: HISTORY CHANNEL), of course if you begin to measure the actual amount spent on the "Eucharist/Mass/Communion" myth as a replacement for the Jewish Sabbath meal, and the Jewish Passover, we are talking about 4 billion dollars several times over... and over... and over, not to mention the political, sociological and theological implications of such an embarrassing admission.  Mass/Eucharist for most of the world's dominant "Christianty" which is found in government religions in Europe, is not simply a nice enjoyable religious service.  It has been the basis of empires, and genocides.  The claim that it is the real effectual blood and flesh of Christ, and thus all those without it, are eternally damned, not to mention, condemned as enemies of the State, is absolutely merciless.

So obviously a great deal of effort will be put into arguing the sky is not blue.  The most obvious fact from the New Testament, which has been openly admitted for centuries is not all of a sudden, mysteriously ambiguous, in light of recent realizations that such admissions open these religious empires to the prospect of having been houses built on sand.(And all they executed and murdered on behalf of those houses, a libelous mistake in judgement)

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR!!!

The criminal defense now argues the Passover wasn't really a Passover!  So what was it then? It was a creative something else instituted by Christ to avoid doing Passover so Christians would never have to do a Passover, and dirty Jews would be stuck (and cursed) with their Old Testament thingy.  After-all the God-given duty of every Christian is to hopefully break (or at least avoid) keeping any law of God as any good anomialist Nicolaitan knows!

The only way you can truly be "saved by Grace" is to violate as many "Torah commandments" as you can get in on one week-end, 52 times a year, thereby proving you are not a Jew.(Who is damned)

But before we get busy trading technicalities, and straightening out twisted logic, it cannot go without being highly noted, here we go again. More intentional "story-telling" and fact twisting to do nothing other than simply deny the patently obvious (because we do not like the truth of it).  And the gymnastics that get employed here are growing by the hour in the desperate attempts by dishonest or severally ignorant intellectuals with titles after their name to use their academic credentials to tell lies. (Which they have had a very long and famous history of doing)

And once again, these lies are literally beyond the pale of credibility, yet they will be put forth as "intelligent", and "intelligent" people, who would rather have an Asherah tree in their living room, and a Roman Eucharist wafer in the shape of a ball of fire in the sky, put on their tongue, will thank them as though the title itself was enough to justify the ignoramus's account of reality.
Now there may be others offered privately, or publicly over time, but right now these seem to be where all the muscle is being placed to avoid the textual obvious.  In the end however, a thing according to the text of the New Testament, is called precisely what they intended it to be.  If the authors called it an "Elephant", rightly or wrongly, that is what they believed it was in their own mind, when they used the term.  And all 4 writers of the gospels call it the same thing, without exception.  So whoever you wish to fantasize as having "really" written the New Testament, as the earliest followers of Christ, and as this material being the earliest and most reliable representation of those beliefs, that is what they believed it was.

And that really should be the end of the controversy.  Everything else to argue the denial, is also a denial of those who first followed Christ and took it upon themselves to document their original faith in what we have today as the New Testament.  For a professional "disinformationist", it's simply an academic exercise, to find creative ways to confuse, mislead, muddy, and obscure.  But for those who call themselves by the name of those found in the New Testament, these kinds of academic exercise by professional "pay-per-lie", liars, should not be falsely graced with any air of dignity.  And they should be called what they are, and they work, what it is.  

Government paid for and sponsored deceit, passed out by academic deceivers with no conscience except that which is bought by the highest bidder, should have no place in discussions about real history, Biblical theology, religious faith, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary had a little lamb, or anything else.  They lined up in rows, falling all over themselves to tell Americans, there was no link between cigarette smoking and lung disease for decades.  They have been lying since the Valladolid debates, they lied for Nazi Germany propaganda, they lied for Soviet communist propaganda.  They have lied for the tobacco industry, the oil industry, the communists, the Nazis, the klan, the drug companies, the politicians, the Pope, the lawyers... anybody with a checking account and the ability to write a check had professional liars from some famous university, falling all over themselves standing in line, volunteering to be the lucky liar.  And the examples of "Academics" on the payroll to say whatever lie is strategically important for the biggest liar with the most money at any given point in history no matter how deceptive, depraved or revolting, could fill volumes of books without end.  It could be a "college major" on it's own right, and have it's own section in the library.  

An enlightened Protestant needs to learn to use their own mind and evaluate these arguments on their own merits no matter the source, or the esteem of the "liar for hire" behind the bogus claims.  If you use Celebrex and notice it seems to be killing you, ignore the "liar for hire" to tell you it was safe.  They are not the ones it is killing. And it is absolutely amazing how quickly "Academic" opinion "changes" when there is more money to be made suing people because it kills you, than declaring it is "safe" in a cooked "report".

If there had been nothing to "change" the Nicene council, would never has issued it's "statement" THAT IT DID AND WHY!  But let's indulge these bogus arguments, because there are serious efforts to revise this point in favor of current Apostate practices that are simply false, and have been so for a very very long time.  

Well, if you are a sincere Christian, and all you seek is to do the will of God as made known to you in the Scriptures, you will probably very easily see through the idiotic and deluded arguments now being put forth by these sad and pitiful people.  No greater example of this case is found in the Biblical Archaeology Review, which also had the idiotic commitment to "propaganda" to claim  with a straight face, those Romans practicing Necromancy in Rome's catacombs, were "Christians", and the devil-mixtures of Christ as Apollo they painted on the walls of these tombs, where they were gathered together to fondle the rotting flesh of filthy corpses, inducing themselves into demonic seizures and conjuring up "spirits" of dead people, was "Christmas".

This same bunch of lying Neanderthalic morons have now offered their intellectual skills, of fact twisting for pay, at offering denials of the plain words of the texts in the New Testament, and when you see the "rational" for their logic, it should be enough to make you want to visit a Roman vomitorium, stick a finger down your throat, and empty every filthy word you just got finish wasting your time, to digest.

So in order to offer a rebuttal to these claims, this section has been added to clean up the muddy waters.

PASSOVER OR MAKE-OVER?

There are three basic arguments used to "prove" the PASSOVER wasn't the PASSOVER.[Even though that is what all 4 gospel accounts called it]  But when you are stuck between a rock and the Armilus it gave birth too, you have to find alternate explanations for why you find yourself there, with pitch forks, guillotines, and crusader swords full of blood.

These three arguments are based upon:
(1) ARGUMENT FROM SYNOPTIC CHRONOLOGIES
(2) ARGUMENT FROM PREPARATION AFTER CRUCIFIXION
(3) ARGUMENT FROM USE OF THE TERM "BREAD"


(1) ARGUMENT FROM SYNOPTIC CHRONOLOGIES

It is noted that Christ observed his Passover meal with his disciples, two days prior to the second reference to the Passover Meal which is still future, later in the same gospels.  Therefore, it is concluded, it was not "Passover".

Answer: There are a number of different ways to address this difference, which require no change whatsoever, in the fact it was, precisely as the same texts which record these two different Passover meal times, to begin with.  

a. If it had been a DIFFERENT THING because of the two separate occurrences, the authors would have used TWO SEPARATE TERMS, but they did not.  So whatever else you wish to say about it, is voided by the writers themselves.

b. The cause of the two occurrences are completely logical and in keeping with Jewish custom.  If for some reason someone was going to "miss" the actual Passover, the closest possible date was used (which is perfectly logical as Christ was going to be in a tomb).  The last possible date for him to observe this feast would have been preicsely when he did, right before he was arrested, tried and crucified.

c. But the problem for the state-institutional (Roman) versions of Christianity over this question can backfire as much as it solves, by creating major arguments on this distinction in chronology, because there is even a further explanation observed in the chronology differences that deepens the Passover (Jewish Christ) argument even further.   That is the use of a Biblical calendar, versus the common rabbinical one. (Variation of which is often precisely 2 days, exactly as observed in the synoptic gospel texts)

Mat 26:18 And he said, Go into the city TO SUCH A MAN, and SAY UNTO HIM, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep THE PASSOVER AT THY HOUSE with my disciples.

Mar 14:13-15 And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: FOLLOW HIM. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall EAT THE PASSOVER with my disciples?  And HE WILL SHOW YOU a large upper room FURNISHED AND PREPARED: there make ready for us.

d. The "Passover meal" Christ was holding, was not simply a "spur of the moment" make-up meal that he was having.  It had been "prepared", but it's preparation day, was clearly not the same preparation day as "the (rabbinical) Jews", which was later.  The rabbinical Passover in 1st century Israel was not a domestic Passover as commanded in the Torah.  They had corrupted practice into a synagogue celebration, and discontinued the Bible Passover altogether.  But that did not mean everyone in Israel "agreed with" these changes, nor even adopted them.  Christ told his disciples to go to a "certain man's house" that had already made preparations for a domestic Passover, and ask him if they could hold Passover at his home.  He obliged them obviously sharing sympathy (and possibly involvement) in their movement.  So, the rabbinical Passover corruptions changing the meal into a synagogue celebration, were not universally accepted in Israel. Nor it's non-Biblical calendar for computing it's observance.

THIS PASSOVER - Luke 22:13,15, Mtt.26:19
THIS DO - Luke 22:19,1 Co.11:24,25 
THIS IS my body - Luke 22:19, Mtt.26:26, 1 Co.11:24,25
THIS IS my blood - Luke 22:20, Mtt.26:28, 1 Co.11:24,25

e. THIS PASSOVER - What's so special about the term "This Passover"??  Look where it is found in the Old Testament!

LUKE 22:15 - τὸ πάσχα [NTG]
2 KI. 23:23 -  τὸ πασχα [LXX]

2Ki 23:21-14  And the king commanded all the people, saying, Keep the passover unto the LORD your God, as it is written in the book of this covenant. Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the kings of Judah; But in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, wherein THIS PASSOVER was holden to the LORD in Jerusalem. Moreover the (1) workers with familiar spirits, (2) and the wizards, (3) and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD. 

(1) workers with familiar spirits
(2) and the wizards
(3) and the images
(4) and the idols
(5) and all the abominations 


The above descriptions sound precisely like one of Rome's "Christ" Masses today, to the virtual letter.  This is how they were observing "Passover" (Christ-mass) in Israel in the time of Josiah.  

2Ch 35:17-19  And the children of Israel that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days. And there was no passover like to that kept in Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet; neither did all the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.  In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept. 

What was the "big deal" with Josiah keeping Passover? Hadn't they been commanded to keep it already anyway? Yes, but there weren't doing it QUOTE: "as it is written in the book of this covenant"

There were two legitimate locations for observing Passover. The first was the original location of the home, the second was prophetically stated as "the place where his name would be appointed" (meaning the Temple in Jerusalem).  Josiah instituted a discontinuance of the "bamah house" (houses of the high places), and re-established the practice at the Temple. 2Ch 35:1-27

But how were they doing it before these "reforms"? They were doing it wrong precisely as they were doing it wrong when Christ came, because Josiah's reforms had failed, and been REJECTED by the "elders" (Sanhedrin) of Israel.  That is why they were carried into captivity (for their rebellion). But it was a rebellion, that never reformed.  It continued right into the second temple period, in the form the synagogue. This is where they were "keeping Passover":

2Ki 23:19,20  And all the houses also of the high places that were in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made to provoke the LORD to anger, Josiah took away, and did to them according to all the acts that he had done in Bethel. And he slew all the priests of the high places that were there upon the altars, and burned men's bones upon them, and returned to Jerusalem. 


This institution named itself "The Synagogue" but was precisely the institutionalization of the Bamah houses and it's clergy in the time of Josiah, and this is precisely why Christ himself echoed they same exact phrase used of Josiah (before he died) THIS PASSOVER !!  THE DOMESTIC PASSOVER COMMANDED IN THE COVENANT.

QUOTE: "The site on which the Synagogue is to be built, according to the Tosefta (Meg. 4:23) and codified by the posekim (Sh. Ar., OH 150:2), should be the highest spot in the city and the synagogue should also be the highest building. Jews have been unable to comply with this law in many times and places. As a result, Jews in the MiddleAges attempted to fulfill this law by erecting on the roof of the synagogue a pole or rod [steeple] which would rise higher than the surrounding buildings. As long as the extension was a "built one" rather than just a simple attachment this method of compliance was acceptable (Sh. Ar., OH 150:2, see Ba'er Heitev, ad loc., and Mishnah Berurah,para. 8).END QUOTE, p.585, Encylopedia Judiaca

This discussion is addressed in more length under the title in the navigation bar "the Church".  Suffice it to say here, one of the primary complaints you will hear in the New Testament concerning the "Synagogue", is that is was an invalid institution [Rev.2:9,3:9].  Ezekiel called this very institution a "house of rebellion", [KJVA- Eze_2:3; Eze_2:5; Eze_2:6; Eze_2:7; Eze_2:8; Eze_3:9; Eze_3:26; Eze_3:27; Eze_12:2; Eze_12:3; Eze_12:9; Eze_12:25; Eze_17:12; Eze_24:3; Eze_44:6;] ...and refused to endorse it himself, thus why the New Testament writers also called it the "synagogue of Satan". Consequently, the synagogue (bamah house) institution naturally returned the favor and refused to endorse the continued existence of the prophets in Israel (who opposed their new institution). 

The reforms that Josiah enacted concerning "THIS PASSOVER",  QUOTE: "as it is written in the book of this covenant", were not being kept in the second temple period during the time of Christ (by the very admission and insistence of the Rabbis themselves!), anymore than they were in the time of Josiah (which he re-instituted unsuccessfully prior to his DEATH in his attempt to oppose their changes) This is exactly the same terminology used by Christ, prior to his own death like Josiah, when he also re-instituted this same domestic "covenant Passover" a second time, this time calling it HIS BODY and HIS BLOOD. 

OBJECTION: PENTECOST WOULD HAVE BEEN OBSERVED ON AN EARLIER DATE TOO!

The objection that 2 different calendar dates for Passover would then logically argue for 2 different dates for PENTECOST (The Feast of Weeks), does not dismiss this point for the simple reason that today's Jewish "feast of Weeks" is a post-Temple festival that has been modified out of necessity by the council of Rabbis and Maimonides.  The Old Testament festival required participation at the Temple in Jerusalem, conducted by the Temple Priests.  Thus why in Acts we read:

Act 2:1-5  And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven
 
The festival required attendance at the Temple in Jerusalem, and services for this festival were conducted by the Temple priests. Meaning... it was also at the discretion of the Temple priests to offer their services for this festival. In other words, you had to observe these rituals when the temple priests did, or not at all.  The Passover meal however, was to be a domestic observance, which was commanded to be done in the home.  Thus also meaning it was subject to the discretion of the household which would be observing it. This was not the case for the day of Pentecost. (A temple observance)  Thus logically (and out of necessity) only one date would have been observed and it would have been out of necessity, the one on which the Temple priests offered services.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA
As the name indicates (πεντηκοστή, pentēkostḗ), this second of the great Jewish national festivals was observed on the 50th day, or 7 weeks, from the Paschal Feast, and therefore in the Old Testament it was called “the feast of weeks.” ..Every male in Israel was on that day required to appear before the Lord at the sanctuary (Exo_34:22, Exo_34:23). It was the first of the two agrarian festivals of Israel and signified the completion of the barley-harvest (Lev_23:15, Lev_23:16; Deu_16:9, Deu_16:10), which had begun at the time of the waving of the first ripe sheaf of the first-fruits (Lev_23:11). Pentecost, or the Feast of Weeks, therefore fell on the 50th day after this occurrence. The wheat was then also nearly everywhere harvested (Exo_23:16; Exo_34:22; Num_28:26), and the general character of the festival was that of a harvest-home celebration. The day was observed as a Sabbath day, all labor was suspended, and the people appeared before Yahweh to express their gratitude (Lev_23:21; Num_28:26). The central feature of the day was the presentation of two loaves of leavened, salted bread unto the Lord (Lev_23:17, Lev_23:20; Exo_34:22; Num_28:26; Deu_16:10). The size of each loaf was fixed by law. It must contain the tenth of an ephah, about three quarts and a half, of the finest wheat flour of the new harvest (Lev_23:17). Later Jewish writers are very minute in their description of the preparation of these two loaves (Josephus, Ant., III, x, 6). According to the Mishna (Menāḥōth, xi. 4), the length of the loaf was 7 handbreadths, its width 4, its depth 7 fingers. Lev_23:18 describes the additional sacrifices required on this occasion. It was a festival of good cheer, a day of joy. Free-will offerings were to be made to the Lord (Deu_16:10), and it was to be marked by a liberal spirit toward the Levite, the stranger, and orphans and widows (Deu_16:11, Deu_16:14). Perhaps the command against gleaning harvest-fields has a bearing on this custom (Lev_23:22). The Old Testament does not give it the historical significance which later Jewish writers have ascribed to it. The Israelites were admonished to remember their bondage on that day and to reconsecrate themselves to the Lord (Deu_16:12), but it does not yet commemorate the giving of the Law at Sinai or the birth of the national existence, in the Old Testament conception (Ex 19). Philo, Josephus, and the earlier Talmud are all ignorant of this new meaning which was given to the day in later Jewish history. It originated with the great Jewish rabbi Maimonides and has been copied by Christian writers. And thus a view of the Jewish Pentecost has been originated, which is wholly foreign to the scope of the ancient institution.


(2) ARGUMENT FROM PREPARATION AFTER CRUCIFIXION (See above)

(3) ARGUMENT FROM USE OF THE TERM "BREAD"

It is claimed that the Greek word "azumos" means "unleaved", and the Greek term "artos" means "leavened", and since the term "artos" is used, instead of "azumos", it was therefore NOT unleavened bread, but LEAVENED BREAD, therefore could NOT have been the Passover (even though that is what the gospel writers called it)

ANSWER: This is perhaps what is considered the strongest argument of the "It's not really a Passover" crowd.  An argument on the semantics of the Greek word "bread".  But the problem with arguments based solely on semantics, is that they are in reality a form of "circular reasoning", and this one is no exception.  You have to disconnect the text from it's historical context, disconnect Christ from his religious context, disconnect your semantic argument from how it is actually used in the text with it's own context, and then demolish all of the above, on your assertion it can only mean the one thing you claim it means, therefore the text means something else (despite what it says).

ζύμη
zumē
dzoo'-may
Probably from G2204; ferment (as if boiling up): - leaven.

G106
ἄζυμος
azumos
ad'-zoo-mos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G2219; unleavened, that is, (figuratively) uncorrupted; (in the neuter plural) specifically (by implication) the Passover week: - unleavened (bread).

The fallacy comes from the assertions over these Greek terms.  "Unleavened" is "azumos", but that doesn't mean "artos" only means "Leavened".  Why? Because "azumos" is actually not one word BUT TWO.  The OPPOSITE of "azumos" is not "artos" it's "ZUMOS".  "A" + "Zumos" means (Un/Non/No) + "Zumos" (Leavened bread).  This term is exactly like the term "Atheist".  The opposite of the term "A" + "Theos" is simply "Theos".  

Neither Christ, nor any disciple, nor PAUL, in fact, NO WHERE in the entire New Testament is ZUMOS (LEAVENED BREAD) ever, ever, used to refer to the "Lord's Supper", QUOTE: "THIS PASSOVER", not even a SINGLE TIME!  So you DO NOT have the OPPOSITE OF UNLEAVENED BREAD as is CLAIMED, in the use of the other term, you would have that in the term ZUMOS, which is NEVER USED! PRECISELY BECAUSE IT'S NOT.

Instead as is fully admitted, THIS is the word that is used:

ἄρτος
artos
Thayer Definition:
1) food composed of flour mixed with water and baked
1a) the Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or round cake, as thick as one’s thumb, and as large as a plate or platter hence it was not to be cut but broken
1b) loaves were consecrated to the Lord
1c) of the bread used at the love-feasts and at the Lord’s Table
2) food of any kind
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G142
Citing in TDNT: 1:477, 80

The term "artos" does not "only mean leavened bread" as is claimed. That is simply a factual misrepresentation of the texts and language. (And at times possibly an intentional one) In fact, the term that means the opposite of "unleaved bread" (azumos) is (zumos) and it is actually NEVER USED in the NEW TESTAMENT AT ALL for any of the "PASSOVERS" conducted by Christ or his disciples!  The Greek term "artos" referred to BREAD OF ANY KIND, in fact, it didn't even have to be a reference to BREAD?!? It also referred to "any kind of FOOD!".

Why is this?  Because Christ prayed for "daily artos" and that usage referred specifically to KOSHER FOOD. Not JUST UNLEAVENED BREAD.  He obviously wasn't praying for UNKOSHER FOOD, so this usage was completely consistent with the idea of FOOD that was appropriate (or Kosher) for whatever the circumstances required,i.e., "daily bread" ( ἄρτος )

Mat 6:11  Give us this day our daily bread. ( ἄρτος )

(MATT. 6:11) JOHN F. GILL, EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE  - All kind of food, everything that is eatable, is with the Jews called לחם, "bread" (ἄρτος) (x). (u) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 29. 2. (w) Zohar in Exod. fol. 26. 2. (x) Jarchi in Job, vi. 7.

But this is not the only CLARIFIER, we have concerning this lame argument.  Paul (remember the supposed licentious Torah-hating fake-Jew Gentile)? Paul (father of Grace theology)? Yes, that one? This is how perfectly clear his explanation was concerning KEEPING THE PASSOVER OF CHRIST:

THE REAL "CHRIST" MASS

1Co 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. 

Honestly, it really couldn't get any clearer, if Paul had DRAWN A PICTURE.




The "bread" they were "breaking house to house" was the Sabbath communal meal, which later came to be included in the term "Agape meal".  This meal was not "The Lord's Supper", it was the Sabbath meal, as it was instructed in the Old Covenant.  The spontaneous (non-ritualistic eating together) had no more a liturgical import to it than ordering Pizza during a Bible study because no one has had anything to eat.   


What about the term "Eucharist"?  What is being examined is not the term, per sae. It is the ritual.  What is the ritual that IS the "Lord's Supper"? Is it "communion"?  "breaking of bread"?  Mass? or a "Passover"?  The term "Eucharist" is the Greek word "Thanks"

εὐχαριστέω
eucharisteō
yoo-khar-is-teh'-o
From G2170; to be grateful, that is, (actually) to express gratitude (towards); specifically to say grace at a meal: - (give) thank (-ful, -s).

εὐχαριστέω
eucharisteō
Thayer Definition:
1) to be grateful, feel thankful
2) give thanks

This naturally occurs throughout the New Testament in so many different contexts that it's use is without definition.  However, it does occur WITH THE PASSOVER.  It also occurs anytime anyone eats anything, because it was "saying grace" at the table.  So unless you wish to argue that any time anyone put something in their mouth in the New Testament, they were always having the "Lord's Supper", it is not a term that says anything.  It sounds nice and liturgical because it's a Greek word, but it means virtually nothing in the New Testament, other than "thanks".

If you take this term as a liturgical term, instead as the nominal use of the word "Thanks" or "gratefulness" as it is actually used in the New Testament text, then Paul taught they were supposed to have a "Eucharist" in "all things", all the time.

1Th 5:18  In every thing give thanks (Eucharist): for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. 

The fact is that in the Bible, there is a clear record of a practice (Passover & Sabbath meals), and in Rome's history there is a clear record of a departure from it.  Considering that Christ called his Passover his "Blood" and his "Flesh", when Rome rejected this commandment in favor of it's own inventions, it also rejected the Blood and Flesh of Christ.  And according to it's own theology, it also damned everyone it forced into accepting this blatent departure from Apostolic tradition concerning the Blood and Flesh of Christ.

Rome didn't "save the pagans", it "damned it's Christians".  And that is precisely the warning given the "cup" it offered in the place of the one Christ commanded as his own blood and flesh, as the original and prophesied passover lamb of God.

The New Testament is perfectly clear, IT WAS A PASSOVER ! JUST LIKE IT SAYS! (And it was kept by followers of Christ until Rome made it a STATE CRIME to continue doing so [which they apparently for some more than rather obvious reasons were forced to do])



THE TESTIMONY OF SECULAR HISTORY CONFIRMS


The expulsion of the Jewish community from Rome caused a set back to the progress of Christianity in that city, for in A.D. 49 it appears to have been only a distinctive movement with Judaism that Christianity was known there.  - p. 21, F.F.Bruce, Jesus & Christian Origins Outside The New Testament,(c)1974, WM.B.Eerdmans Pub. Co.

As only a distinctive movement within Judaism, the Passover, not the Roman Mass, was it's central liturgical ritual commemorating the atonement, precisely as it is recorded in the New Testament.  Constantine's Christianity, which emerged several centuries later, was not the Jewish faith found in the New Testament, it was the Gentile Roman religion of NICOLAITAINISM, and it's "Mass" worshiping the Roman "Sol Invictus/Apollo" AS "Christ", was it's "Christ" mass, founded not by "Christ" but by "Saint Nicholas" and his "Nicolaitans".






JEWS OFFENDED BY CHRISTIANS DOING PASSOVER?


Christ re-instituted the domestic passover as the primary location for it's observance BEFORE rabbinical Judaism re-authorized the practice out of necessity following the destruction of the temple.  Ironically, high-church clergy like to point out that "Jews" (meaning some) are "offended" by Christians keeping passover. But there are also actually some, that are very glad to see it. And have been promoting the idea among Christians for a very long time, just as you see in the picture above being done at the White House, allegedly instigated by Rahm Emanual.  

Of course, Catholics and Episcopalians like to make these claims because it messes their own "Eucharist" theologies up (as it should, because they are "messed up").  But if "Christians" are not "offended" that Jews are now keeping THEIR domestic passover, that Rome slaughtered them for following Christ's command to keep, that he had instituted BEFORE Rabbinical Jews had done by nearly a half century, then Jews certainly have no reason being "offended" that a "Christian" would obey Christ, and actually keep one.  It is neither an incursion on turf, nor a confusion of religious faith. Rabbis own the synagogue, not the Passover.  It is the synagogue that they point to as the definition of their Judaism, not Passover.

HISTORICAL ADMISSIONS

GREEEK ORTHODOX
Pascha is the feast of universal redemption. Our earliest sources for the an­nual celebration of the Christian Pascha come to us from the second century...The feast, however, must have originated in the apostolic period...According to the earliest documents, Pascha is described as a nocturnal celebration...(Calivas, Alkiviadis C. The Origins of Pascha and Great Week - Part I. Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1992. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8504 viewed 11/04/2011)

EMPEROR CONSTANTINE
"For we could never tolerate celebrating the Passover twice in one year. But even if all these facts did not exist, your own sagacity would prompt you to watch with diligence and with prayer, lest your pure minds should appear to share in the customs of a people so utterly depraved. It must also be borne in mind, that upon so important a point as the celebration of a feast of such sanctity, discord is wrong. One day has our Saviour set apart for a commemoration of our deliverance, namely, of His most holy Passion" (Theodoret of Cyrus. Ecclesiastical History (Book I), Chapter IX. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 3. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

SCHOLARS
A whole body of Against the Jews literature was produced by leading Fathers who defamed the Jews as a people and emptied their religious beliefs and practices of any historical value. Two major causalities of the anti-Jewish campaign were Sabbath and Passover. The Sabbath was changed to Sunday and Passover was transferred to Easter-Sunday.

Scholars usually recognize the anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish reckoning of Passover and adoption of Easter-Sunday instead. Joachim Jeremias attributes such a development to "the inclination to break away from Judaism." In a similar vein, J.B. Lightfoot explains that Rome and Alexandria adopted Easter-Sunday to avoid "even the semblance of Judaism" (Bacchiocchi S. God's Festival in Scripture and History. Biblical Perspectives. Befriend Springs (MI), 1995, pp. 101,102,103).

ULTERIOR MOTIVES

Imperial Rome and her Imperial Episcopalians naturally like to complain about it with smirks and attitudes, after all they are losing their audiences, in favor of Rabbis and Messianics, which naturally is quite "offensive" to them, but not to most Jews who know what's really going on and have been promoting the idea for years.  In fact, the entire awareness of this issue was raised not by "Christians" but by Jews, who taught Christians the truth about it.(and even held Seders FOR CHRISTIANS!)   To teach them!  

Would some Rabbi be offended here and there? Of course.  Should Christians "Disobey Christ" because an Episcopalian, a Catholic Priest and a Rabbi on their payroll is offended? No.  Rabbis are the ones who started it among Christians who lost it because of Rome, Rabbis are the ones who historically came second to the domestic Passover table (not first), and most with any sense know this is a good thing not only for Judaism, but the nation of Israel, and the entire Jewish community (thus the reason the work was begun from the beginning [by Rabbis]).

THE "CARCASS" AND THE "REAL PRESENCE" OF CHRIST IN THE ROMAN MASS

THE EAGLE WAS THE STANDARD OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

 THE MOST MISQUOTED TEXTS IN THE ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT

The question was the most logical question that could have possibly been asked after being told the Temple was going to be destroyed, and the follow chapter detailing the discourse by Jesus (i.e.,Yeshua) to the question, is the most logical response he could have possibly given, none of which Christians ever here from their preachers.

Instead this fairly simple text ends up contorted to refer to a smörgåsbord of esoteric mysterious end of the world predictions that are actually no where to be found in the pages of this chapter, often much less the entire Bible.  And to make matters worse, in order to pull off all these contorted hermetical gymnastics, they intentionally completely ignore several key and rather large points in the text itself that anchor it to a time in history when none of it would either make sense or even could actually occur outside of it's very clearly defined historical context. But... that doesn't stop them from turning Christ into a prophetic idiotic, and the major body of evangelical Christians in the world, the laughing stock of every antagonist on the internet beyond a second grade education.

THE PREDICTION: The TEMPLE will be DESTROYED

THE QUESTION: What will destroy it? When will it happen? What will be THE SIGN of the MESSIAH'S PRESENCE in ISRAEL?


THE DISCUSSION

THE HOUR IS COMING WHEN NEITHER IN THIS MOUNTAIN, NOR EVEN AT JERUSALEM

Joh 4:21-24  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 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.

THE CARCASS OF THE TEMPLE CULT

Mat 24:1-2  And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

WHEN WILL THESE THINGS BE?

Mat 24:3-4  And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy PRESENCE, and of the end of the age?

THREE LOGICAL QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE DISCIPLES

(1) WHEN WILL THIS HAPPEN? (THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE)

(2) WHAT WILL BE THE "SIGN" OF THE MESSIAH'S PRESENCE? (IN ISRAEL WITHOUT THE TEMPLE)

(3) WHAT WILL BE THE END OF THE AGE? (OF THE TEMPLE)

Note: These three questions have absolutely nothing to do with the end of the world.  They are asking about the end of the TEMPLE.

THREE LOGICAL ANSWERS TO THREE LOGICAL QUESTIONS

(1) THERE WILL BE WARS AND RUMORS OF WARS (BUT THAT WILL NOT DESTROY IT)

Mat 24:6  And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

Logically, the first thing that happens in a military conflict in the ancient world, is that the enemy sacks THE TEMPLE.  But he is saying that this will not be the end of THE TEMPLE.  This has nothing to do with the end of the world. Nor with "wars" at the end of the world.  It is a discussion about what is going to DESTROY THE TEMPLE.


(2) THERE WILL BE EARTHQUAKES, FAMINE AND CONFLICT (BUT THAT WILL NOT DESTROY IT)

Mat 24:7  For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes

Once again, because ancient temple were large structures, and because they were built out of stone, one of the first things to go in an earthquake is THE TEMPLE.  But he is telling them that it will not be destroyed by an earthquake.  Once again, this has nothing to do with the end of the world, nor is it a prediction about earthquakes at the end of the world.  In fact, the New Testament doesn't actually predict an end of the world, it predicts the beginning of a new one, but even these texts are found elsewhere, this is NOT the discussion they are having at this point.  This discussion is about WHAT IS GOING TO DESTROY THE TEMPLE, that Christ JUST GOT FINISH TELLING THEM WAS GOING TO BE DESTROYED.

(3) THERE WILL BE THE "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" PROPHESIED BY DANIEL.(THEN IT WILL BE DESTROYED) AS WILL BE THE ENTIRE NATION OF ISRAEL

Mat 24:15-16  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

THEN

Mat 24:17  Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 

Mat 24:18  Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 

Mat 24:19  And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 

Mat 24:20  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 

Mat 24:21  For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 

Mat 24:22  And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 

Now here is where all the trouble starts. For some reason, the average fat bald boisterous evangelical TV preacher in America, suddenly and mysteriously skips to the end of the world and his fantasy rendering of a long gone 10 nation European Economic Union, a sci-fi superman antichrist or an IBM super-computer in the holy of holies, and a third temple, and first tatoos,, then bar codes, then RFD tracking chips and brain implants, on and on and on the story goes. (Always changing to fit the new circumstances)  And yet, there is absolutely nothing about any of this in this text. Nothing.  This text is clearly anchored to a specific time and place in history.  It is clearly anchored to the historical conditions and geography of 1st century Israel.  

(1) Judea is a geo-political entity that does not even exist anymore, and never will.  It is a text that CAN NEVER BE FULFILLED at this point in history.  There is NO JUDEA!  But there was in 70 CE.

(2) It would be absolutely worthless to "flee" to the mountains in modern day Israel.  That's where mortar shelling works best. But that wasn't true in 70 CE.

(3) It really has no bearing on modern day transportation if you are fleeing in Israel in the summer or the winter, as Buses, SUVs and Cars run on roads the same in either temperature.  But it certainly mattered in 70 CE when people traveled on donkeys, camels and in wagons.

(4) And riding in a modern vehicle does not impede breast feeding.  But it certainly did in 70 CE.

(5) And people no longer live in houses where they "flee from their rooftops", most live in apartment buildings. They take the stairs and elevators. But they certainly did have roof flats in 70 CE.

Placing this text out of it's historical context, into modern day Israel is no different than preaching from Freudian Inkblots.  No of course, you can't blame the ministers who are working for their 10%.  It's their job to entertain  you with their speeches on Sunday with sensational fantasies that pack in a good crowd and increase their membership.  But you as a religious consumer should not encourage your religious leader to be lying to you in such a blatant and inexcusable manner, without the slightest question or reproof.

THEN

(AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE)


 THE REAL REASON THEY DISTORT AND CONTORT THIS TEXT IN MATTHEW

If you are wondering why such a butchery job is done on this text in Matthew, you are about to find out.  What it REALLY TEACHES certainly needs all the camoflauging the local preacher can offer it, because in it's real and raw form, read as it is actually written, it delivers an incredibly damning message to your minister.  And after all, you pay him to think up professional excuses for disobeying Christ, and there is no better real text in the New Testament to ignore, disobey and reject what Christ actually says, than right here in Matthew 24.  Because it is an absolutely lovely blanket condmenation of pretty much all that your minister teaches and preaches from his Roman Cathedral pulpit every Sun-day.


Mat 24:23-28  Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christoi, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, (1) Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: (2) behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the [PRESENCE] of the Son of man be. For (3) wheresoever the carcase is, there will THE EAGLES be gathered together.



 

THE PAROUSIA OF CHRIST IS NOT IN THE ROMAN MASS


And IF and WHEN you DO begin to examine the contents of this warning, you will find nothing short of the very profile of Roman theology concerning it's MASS, in whom Christ's PAROUSIA (PRESENCE), is said to reside.  It provides another unmistakable road sign, on the path to Romanism's apostate ascendancy under the guise of it's own false "Christ".


(1) HIS PRESENCE IS IN THE DESERT

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, (1) Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: (2) behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the [PRESENCE] of the Son of man be. For (3) wheresoever the carcase is, there will THE EAGLES be gathered together.

The DESERT FATHERS claimed Christ's PAROUSIA was found in the DESERT through their asceticism. The same asceticism that was prophesied to be the mark of future "false prophets" who would come "in Christ's name" after the destruction of Israel, forbid marriage, be vegetarian, and claim his PAROUSIA would be localized to their desert cultus.







(2) HIS PRESENCE IS IN THE SANCTUARY 

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, (1) Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: (2) behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the [PRESENCE] of the Son of man be. For (3) wheresoever the carcase is, there will THE EAGLES be gathered together.


Thus the senseless man... does not ask "where is the TEMPLE into which I should go to worship... On account of his senselessness he is worst than a PAGAN" v. 34, p282 THE NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY

 

As the monastic movement of the desert gnostics developed, it laid increasing emphesis on emergant templum-cultus which had been discontinued in the OLD COVENANT before the JEWISH REFORMATION of the NEW COVENANT.  They began to develop "inner sanctums" (holy rooms) where sacerdotal ritualism was practiced as an early form of gnostic magic.

 

Heb 9:8-11,24  The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:





(3) HIS PRESENCE IS IN THE CHURCH

Wherefore if they shall say unto you, (1) Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth(2) behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the [PRESENCE] of the Son of man be. For (3) wheresoever the carcase is, there will THE EAGLES be gathered together.


The mark of the "False Prophets" and their "False Christs" is that they "Gather at the "Carcass" of Temple-Cult and Claim Christ's "Parousia" is localized there.

 




PANEGYRIC ON THE BUILDING OF THE CHURCHES, ADDRESSED TO PAULINUS, BISHOP OF TYRE: "...And thou, O excellent ornament of this new and holy temple of God endowed by him with the wisdom of the age... has granted the distinguished privilege of rebuilding and renewing it to Christ ...his holy and divine spouse: whether one might call thee a  new Beseleel, the architect of a divine tabernacle, or a Solomon, the king of a new and better Jersualem, or a new Zerubbabel, superadding a glory to the temple of God, much greater than the former.....so have we seen, in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God. And in what city but in this newly built and framed by God? "I was glad when they said unto me, we will go into the  house of the Lord: and again,Lord I have loved the beauty of thine house, and the place where thy honor dwelleth." They also confess Christ the Son of God... in the midst of the city which holds sway over the whole earth. Witness the splendid ornaments and donations of this very temple, which themselves are noble and truly grand, worthy of admiration and astonishment, and expressive symbols of our  Saviours's kingdom. Next to him, however, the second place immediantly devolves on one alone of his equals, the presiding prelate and leader of this host, who has been honored by the first and great High Priest himself with the second in rank in this sanctuary, and has been appointed by him... obtaining this people of yours as his portion by the judgement and allottment of the Father; a new Aaron or another Melchisedech assimilated to the Son of God.  (Pgs. 406-418) - EUSEBIUS ECCLESASTICAL HISTORY

 



In the local Church, first place should certainly be given, because of its significance, to the Mass at which the Bishop presides, surrounded by his presbyterate, deacons, and lay ministers, and in which the holy People of God participate fully and actively, for it is there that the pre-eminent expression of the Church is found.<> When the Lord was about to celebrate with his disciples the Passover meal in which he instituted the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, he gave instructions that a large, furnished upper room should be prepared (Lk 22:12). The Church has always regarded this command as applying also to herself when she gives directions about the preparation of people’s hearts and minds and of the places, rites, and texts for the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist.<> The celebration of the Eucharist in a particular Church is of utmost importance. - INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI, MAY 2007

 

 

Act 17:23-25  ...Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

 

Act 7:48-51  Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? (1) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, (2) ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.


(1) "UNCIRMCISED IN HEART"

This is a phrase indicating the lack of God's presence, the abscence of God's Spirit...i.e., THE PAROUSIA of CHRIST.

Rom 2:28-29  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Php 3:3  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

(2) "RESIST" THE HOLY SPIRIT

ἀντιπίπτω
antipiptō
an-tee-pip'-to
From G473 and G4098 (including its alternate);
TO OPPOSE: - resist.


ἀντί
anti
an-tee'
A primary particle;
OPPOSITE, that is, INSTEAD  Often used in composition to denote CONTRAST

"ANTI" as in "ANTI"-CHRIST.

THE HOLY SPIRIT is not PRESENT when it is the HOLY SPIRIT that you are fighting.  There may be A SPIRIT present, but it is not the same one the Bible is referring to as "God".

It is THIS SPIRIT:

THE SPIRIT THAT IS PRESENT IN APOLLO'S CHRIST-MASS

1Ti 4:1-3  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 

Earliest accounts of mixing "Christ" with the worship of the sun-god (Ha Sawtawn) occur among these "desert fathers" in Egypt, where even the Roman Catholic Origen mentions the practice in condemnation. 

[On the walls of the cliff tombs where the Nag Hammadi library was discovered are crosses painted on the walls along with prayers to "Zeus Sarapis" mixed in with PSLAMS from the Bible]. - p.20, Nag Hammadi Library, Robinson

Who is "Zeus Sarapis"?

 

Zeus (also spelled Seus)  the father "God" of the pantheon ..."Sar" [son of] ..."Apis" the Sun. Seus SarApis became the Greco-Roman Je-Sus born on the SOLAR SOLSTICE, Dec. 25th, the "traditional" birthdate of the solar-god throughout the ancient world.

Origen denounces the idea of  the syncretistic pagan celebration of Chirst’s birthday as though he were an ungodly Pharaoh. 245 AD,  - "Natal Day", The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913.

 


CHRIST-MASS IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH


Jud 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

THE FAITH that was ONCE DELIVERED to the saints, did not include observance of Apollo's Birth at the Winter Solstice. Far from it. [Even according to Roman Catholic admission]  To observe it, is to DEPART FROM THE FAITH ONCE DELIVERED to the saints.

 



CHRISTMAS IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES


2Th 2:3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [DEPARTURE] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2Th 2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


The APOSTLES taught no Tradition of observing Apollo's birth date by mixing it with the "celebration" of "Christ".  Doing it is "Falling Away" from the traditions taught by the Apostles.  And the whole point of keeping those things which were IN THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES, was to avoid "falling prey" to the coming MAN OF SIN, the SON OF PERDITION, who would be revealed to the whole world by his exaltation of himself over everything that is worshipped or called God (2 Thss 2:4), claim to BE CHRIST (Mat 24:5)  and his demand that the world worship a Roman ICON (Rev. 13:5) in "Christ's name".

And the "Christ-Mass" and it's Roman Icon,  is precisely and specifically exactly that.

How often do you hear Protestant Pastors claim the reason they continue the practice even though they know it is a fraud, is that it brings many people out to their "Church" who would not otherwise come any other time of year?  The question is, when they come to gather at the carcass, what "Christ" are these Pastors giving these people?






CHRISTMAS IS A VIOLATION OF THE COMMAND OF THE APOSTLES


 2Th 3:6  Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. 


COMMAND, means to ORDER, INSIST, CHARGE. παραγγέλλω, paraggellō, PRON.par-ang-gel'-lo ; to transmit a message, that is, to enjoin: - (give in) charge, (give) command (-ment), declare.

It is simply a recognized historical fact, verified by the documentary evidence of the text of the New Testament itself, that THE TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES, was (and still is) the KEEPING OF PASSOVER, and not "CHRIST-MASS".  Because these changes affect the very "PARADOSIS" (or Body of Tradition involving the transmission of the Euangelion itself), the New Testament, and Paul specifically, (the very one charged with being secretly a Gentile) PAUL COMMANDS, that every real believer or follower of the REAL CHRIST, withdraw or separate themselves, from anyone refusing to keep these traditions.  That is as strong as it gets in the New Testament aside from the carte blanc statement you are going to Hell.

And despite the fact that these truths are known and even admitted from history, from the very words of the Nicene council itself, to the clear texts in the New Testament, Christian Churches twisted, stretch and mangled the very words of these plain and obvious texts into all kinds of gymnastics to avoid the obvious,... and simply REPENT.  Thus proving to YOU and to the WHOLE WORLD, and everyone reading this web page, from every country on earth, no matter what your religious profession might be... that these people are IMPOSTERS, and have been so for 1700 years.

It is very easy for a real follower of Christ to REPENT.  They simply discover a truth, admit their previous error, and change accordingly, which can be done in the blink of an eye.  But for an historical fraud that has claimed the lives of millions of people, while pronouncing their own absolute infallible authority over the whole earth as the only real legitimate Representative of either Christ or God on the planet in the history of mankind, from the lofty throne of power of the Roman empire, such changes (Repentence) can never come without an admission of guilt. (Thus why it will never happen)

So  if you do consider yourself a REAL follower of Christ, you are left with two biblical choices in reference to your Protestant minister (1) Approach him, and ask him to repent showing him the truth from history and the scripture, and/or (2) Withdraw yourself from him.  There are no other options given in the scriptures.  And the reason this was "commanded", was for your own protection against the coming of THE MAN OF SIN. (Which all slaughtered Thessalonians, and later Protestant denominations at one time clearly and correctly understood to be the papacy of Rome)

 




CHRIST-MASS IS THE RE-SACRIFICE OF CHRIST


"...the nature of the ministerial priesthood proper to a Bishop and a priest, who offer the Sacrifice in the person of Christ and who preside over the gathering of the holy people, is evident in the form of the rite itself, by reason of the more prominent place and office of the priest. the Church’s offering and the Victim by whose immolation God willed to be appeased; 4 and he prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice acceptable to the Father and salvific for the whole world." - INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI, MAY 2007

 



CHRIST-MASS IS PUTTING CHRIST TO OPEN SHAME

 

IT IS FINISHED

Joh 19:30  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 

ONCE FOR ALL

1Pe 3:18  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Heb 10:9,10  Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 

OPEN SHAME

Heb 6:6  If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 




"CHRIST-MASS" IS THE SOLAR SACRIFICE TO SATURN (SATYR)


 

Since "Christ-Mass" is a ritual introduced by Rome to ASSIMILATE and SYNTHESIZE the Paganism of the Roman Sun-god CULT with MONOTHEISTIC JUDAISM, it is not surprising to discover that the rituals of it's MASS predate it's institution as a "Christian" celebration.  This would be entirely expected.  What is perhaps not expected, is that Biblically literate people who should both know and care much better, would be willing to ASSIMILATE their own souls, with what is identified in their Bibles as DEVIL WORSHIP.

 

Deu 32:5,17-22  They have corrupted themselves, their spot is not the spot of his children: they are a perverse and crooked typeThey sacrificed unto devils, not to God; They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.  For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest helland shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

 

This text was written about unauthorized "sacrifices" being offered to the solar-deity in "Bema houses" [unauthorized Templum-cultus] which was being assimilated by Israel into's it's religious practices.  The solar-deity condemned here, known by various names throughout the levant region, is later mentioned as Tammuz in Ezekeil 8 centuries later.  The verdict by the prophet's against it's syncretistic assimiliation remains consistently condemned, reguardless of the name.

Millenia later, it's assimiliation (as Apollyon) among people who would claim to follow "Christ" remains unchanged. Rev. 9:11.  It is still called "Abahd" "dohn" (Abbadon) which means in Hebrew the "Lord of Hell".

 

ORIGINS OF ROME'S SOLAR-MASS AS A "CHRIST" MASS

CON-JOBS, FRAUD AND DECEPTION


THE USUAL SUSPECTS


"in the study of the holy Fathers ...shed light upon the theology of the mystery of the Eucharist through the teachings of such illustrious Fathers of Christian antiquity as St Irenaeus, St Ambrose, St Cyril of Jerusalem, and St John Chrysostom." - INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI, May 2007

Any discussion of the Eucharist always leads back to the same crew of "Church Fathers" primarily because as it is sometimes admitted, along with CHRIST-MASS, it does not exist in the New Testament.  To bridge the gap between what is obvious practice and teaching in the New Testament, to the completely alien and DEPARTED practices of Modern Rome and it's daughter Churches, one has to justify those many extravagant departures through some form of "logic" to it's ciritics.

That justification is always found the same way.  Through an appeal to what Rome has always done best, re-writing history.  Rome always looks to the same handful of Post-New Testament men that Rome alone had chosen from literally a vast empire of possiblitiies, and had both the followers of, and the writings of, all the rest burned and exterminated.  The assurances that Rome picked the right people to kill and the right books to burn always end up reverting back to "well Rome knows best".  So it hardly makes for a truly honest or convincing argument.  And casts more suspiscion on these men than credibility to any objective student of history.

Especially if you examine these so-called "fathers" in any ciritical detail.  The claim is made in their defense that they are "accepted" by this group and that group and this council and that council followed with percentages, polls and relgious celebrity endorsements, which are all very impressive citations of a long history of aberant contradictory apostacy but establish nothing in the way of actual history, or Biblical theology, rending their citations only relevent to audiences that wish them to be so. (i.e., wishful thinkers)



IGNATIUS AND IRENAEUS FATHER OF THE "MASS" OF "CHRIST-MASS"


The very first to be cited in this long history of error, is actually it's author, and often admittedly so by it's own advocates.  While the INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI cites Irenaeus as it's first in the list, most Catholic priests will begin by pointing first to Ignatius. And from there, the practice of the Eucharist is traced to (Saint) Irenaeus.  Ironically, what most do not realize, is that far from legitamizing the Eucharist by pointing to it's origin in these men, it clearly does exactly the opposite.  It points to the illegitamacy of these men as historically Apostolic, and that is not the only evidence one has at their disposal to do so.  The "fathers" of Rome's own apostacy are precisely that.  What they have preserved is nothing less than a clearly defined record of how they "fell away" and "departed" from the Apostolic faith one reads about in the New Testament.  While the history and testimony of those who remained faithful to the practices and traditions of the New Testament may have been snuffed out, they did not snuff out a clearly defined, and admittedly embraced, record of their own Apostacy, and the men who are historically responsible for all these many errors.

This record in a certain sense is as valuable, as having had the ones they by thier own admission, snuffed out of existence.   By studying them critically, one can see in their own words, and in their own admissions, precisely what DEPARTURES from Biblical faith, they were indulging, and why they were doing it.  So even though one does not have the written record of whatever traditions remained static with the New Testament practices and beliefs, we do have thanks to Rome, the record of those who departed from it, complete with their own explanations of why.  (Which in some ways is even better) 

If a community remained essentially static with New Testament practices, there would not be much to "add" to it, obviously.  The most critical need for documentation would be the departures themselves and why they were embraced.  Which we do have thanks to Rome, but obviously not for the reasons Rome intended.




The claims made for these "Apostolic fathers" are not substantiated by the basic facts of familiarity with either the Apostolic teaching found in the New Testament from the actual Apostles, or even such basic things as commonly known details about the life of Christ. 

the mystery of the Eucharist through the teachings of such illustrious Fathers of Christian antiquity as St Irenaeus- INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI, May 2007

As you can see from the Missalis Romani quote above, Irenaeus is directly credited with the "teaching" of the Roman Eucharist based on the claim that he was an "Apostolic father".  That claim, along with the others, is contradicted by the basic facts concerning Irenaeus knowledge of the life of Christ. 



More information on the "Church Fathers" is discussed in the section entitled the "Church" of Christmas, listed in the navigation bar at the top and bottom of this page.




THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION




What you will see documented below, is how Rome replaced not only the New Testament Christ with Apollo, but even that the very blood and flesh of that New Testament Jewish Christ was openly and fully rejected.  The scripture in 1 John that the "spirit" of the "antichrist" denies the FLESH of CHRIST is even cited by Roman apologists as the final and ultimate proof, the Pope is not the Anti-christ.  The only problem. of course, is that he did PRECISELY THAT.  And he did so in the instutition of the Christ-Mass, no less.  Christ-mass is a full and complete rejection of the blood and body of Christ.  And in so being, it is also the New Covenant version of something technically known as the "Abomination of Desolation", which American pseudo-evangelical Chiliasts always cite as proof the Pope is not yet the Antichrist because hasn't been done. (Which of course he has, right under their noses)


THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION


Rev 14:10  The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 


THE "CUP" OF "CHRIST-MASS"



DECEMBER 25TH: The Day Of The Abomination Of Desolation


From Daniel and other sources, the contextual and historical meaning of the “abomination of desolation” is the desecration of the Temple when Antiochus erected a statue of Zeus inside the temple and sacrificed a pig on the altar on December 25, 167 B. C. in honor of the birth of the Sun god. This single act of desolation so incited the Jews that it began a revolt which ended in Jewish independence for the first time since 586 B. C. This end of foreign rule has been celebrated as the important Jewish festival of Hanukkah, meaning “dedication” (of the sanctuary) from 164 B. C. until today. - Source, Exploring the Book of Daniel: An Expository Commentary By John Phillips - P.256, Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, ©2004., - Prophecy Forum / Antiochus


After 169 BC, he encouraged his people to worship him as the Greek god Zeus, taking the title “Theos Epiphanes”, meaning “the manifest God”, believing that he was an incarnation of Zeus. His enemies called him “Epimanes”, meaning “mad-man”, a change which only required altering a single letter in the Greek. Later in his reign, Antiochus IV became the first king to issue coins on which he proclaimed himself to be a god. He was portrayed as Zeus enthroned with the inscription, “King Antiochus. God Manifest, Bearing Victory”.  - Antiochus Ephiphanes






THE MAN OF SIN


2 Thess. 2:3-4  

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the SANCTUARY of God, shewing himself that he is God. 

 I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do. -  
Unam Sanctam, POPE BONIFACE VIII




THE ABOMINATION



The ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION is expression that refers to the desecration of the Temple by the erection of a statue of Zeus in its sacred precincts by Antiochus IV Epiphanes written about in Daniel.

Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

1 Maccabees uses the term to point to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mid-second century BC when, he set up an altar to Zeus in the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and sacrificed swine on it around the year 167 BC.



The term "ABOMINATION" occurs 76 times throughout the Bible in 69 verses and is used concpiciously to refer to the sin of Idolatry.  4 Verses record it's usage in the New Testament.

Of the 4 verses that cite the term, 2 refer to the events leading to the destruction of in 70 AD. 

Mat 24:15-16  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Mar 13:14  But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:


(Which is precisely what Jews in Israel did, thus why the Dead Sea Scrolls were found hidden in the mountains) Taking these texts out of historical context to apply them to the end of the world is quite a stretch beyond just the butchering of the text.  Some of it couldn't happen even if everyone on earth wanted to stage it as a play.  "Judea" literally no longer exists.


Mat 24:20  But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

And today, since we travel in cars and planes, rather than donkey's and camels, it really wouldn't make much difference if it were a Sabbath or in the Winter. The trip takes only a couple of hours to go the entire distance of the country.  It is clear Christ was not referring to a post-diaspora Israel thousands of years later.



The third use of the term "Abomination" in the New Testament gives it an applicatory definition to things which are highly esteemed among earthy men but that are morally or spiritually corrupt:

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Once again, referring back to it's common usage as a term for Idolatry.



The 4th use is found in Revelation as something descriptive of the "New Jerusalem":

Rev 21:27  And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.



One of the claims that many make, although there is literally nothing in the New Testament that actually prophesies this, is that the Antichrist will commit the Abomination of Desolation.  Here is how one website explains their concept of it:

Most Bible prophecy interpreters believe that Jesus was referring to the Antichrist, who will do something very similar to what Antiochus Epiphanes did. This is confirmed by the fact that some of what Daniel prophesied in Daniel 9:27 did not occur in 167 B.C. with Antiochus Epiphanes. ... Whatever the future abomination of desolation is, it will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that the one perpetrating it is the person known as the Antichrist. Revelation 13:14 describes him making some kind of image to which all are forced to bow down and worship. Turning the Temple of the Living God into a place of worship for himself is about as much of an abomination in God’s eyes as there could possibly be.

 

(1) Making an "Image" (Which is literally the word "Icon", they always avoid using)

(2) Turning the Temple of the Living God into a place of worship FOR HIMSELF.

(3) Taking away the "sacrifice" and

(4) "defiling" the Temple with Idolatry, making it "desolate".

So THE PATTERN of this concept of ANTICHRIST is seen in ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES.  The Roman Christ-Mass does all 4 of these things, and there is much more to the fulfillment of this pattern in the "Christ-Mass" than you have been told.  If you saw that the "Christ-Mass" fulfilled the pattern of the "Abomination Of Desolation", if not in a very real sense historically, at the very least in it's spiritual sense,  would you still do it?



 PROPHETIC RE-CURRENT PATTERNS OF THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION


1. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES WAS FROM ANTIOCH, SYRIA

2. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES WAS ANTI-SEMITIC

3. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES STOPPED THE TEMPLE SACRIFICE

4. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES REPLACED THEM WITH PIG SACRIFICE

5. ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES ERECTED AN IDOL OF ZEUS IN THE TEMPLE PRECINCT

 




CHRIST-MASS IS THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

 

[Abomination of Desolation] The phrase shíqqûç shômem stands for the original expression bá' ál shámáyîm (Baal of heaven), a title found in Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions, and the semitic equivalent of the Greek Zeus, Jupiter, but modified in Daniel through Jewish aversion for the name of a Pagan deity. While thus disagreeing as to the precise sense of the Hebrew phrase usually rendered by "the abomination of desolation", Christian scholars are practically at one with regard to its general meaning. - New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

 


1. IT CAME FROM ANTIOCH SYRIA

The founder of the Eucharist was Ignatius of Antioch Syria - The same exact city Antiochus Epiphanes was from. (It is also one of the most Anti-semitic places on earth to this very day)



2. IT WAS CREATED OUT OF ANTI-SEMITISM

Ingatius openly states that one of the reasons he introduced the "Eucharist" was to "Separate himself" from "living as a Jew", which he considered himself superior to, in his own confessions.  Thus setting the stage for centuries of viral antisemtic theology among "christians" in the following millenia who read this early Nazi offering from Rome's cooked history books.

For if we are still practicing Judaism, we admit that we have not received God’s favor…it is wrong to talk about Jesus Christ and live like Jews. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity. - Ignatius Bishop of Antioch (98-117A.D.) Epistle to the Magnesians

Compare:

Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. - Christ

1Jn 2:19  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

And what exaclty was John speaking about when he was speaking about people who "went out from them"? You will never guess what is in the PREVIOUS VERSE!

1Jn 2:18  Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1Jn 2:19  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 



3. THE BLOOD SACRIFICE IN THE TEMPLE WAS STOPPED

Ignatius refused to practice the command actually given to the real disciples, by the real Christ, precisely because he was too anti-semitic to stomache anything Jewish.  In so doing, he STOPPED the practice of the actual Passover commanded by Christ to his disciples found in the gospels. Later under Sixth III and his Theodosius II Codex, it was made Roman law, and Christian Passovers were made a crime against the Roman empire.

While Protestants do not generally accept the idea that the "Blood" of the "Lord's Supper" is "his blood" in a literal way (which was actually a Passover), it must be admitted that the text itself calls it HIS BLOOD.  Yet that is precisely THE BLOOD that was STOPPED by Rome, and REPLACED with something else. (as you will see below)  Rome has damned even babies to hell because they do not have "The Blood" which they claim to be the "possessors of" through their Eucharist.  This "judgement" is also a measure by which according to Christ, they will "be judged".  If the Eucharist is NOT THE BLOOD that Christ commanded, but a pagan apostate substitute, then that judgement of damnation is one to be recieved by it's giver, not the recipient to whom it is flung.  And such is in fact the case according to the Bible.

If  you accept THE BLOOD of the "Lord's Supper" as THE SACRIFICE (Be it symbolic or literal) , then it can only be admitted that it is this very sacrifice that has BEEN STOPPED IN THE TEMPLE.

In the New Testament, the "Temple" is not defined as the building on the physical Mount Zion in Jerusalem, but the spiritual body of Christ's following.  The image of the idol is erected and stands today in the "Holy Place" where the blood of Christ's sacrifice is offered before God.

1Co 3:16  Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Co 3:17  If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

1Co 6:19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Eph 2:21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Rev 3:12  Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.





4. IT WAS REPLACED WITH A PIG

Rejecting the Jewish Passover written about in the Bible, the Pope offered in it's place the additional practice of "Christ-Mass" to syncronize the beginning of the year with the Roman sun-god, officiated by Sixth III. 

It replaced the mark of Passover as the beginning of the ecclesastical year (as it was for New Testament Jews) with it's "Christ-Mass", and offered it's companion apostacy "Easter", complete with eating an honorary Ham intead of a Lamb, and looking for Babylonian fertility eggs, after the customs of pagans in celebration of Ishtar. All made compulsary Roman Law under Sixth III on pain of legal prosecution.



5. AN IMAGE (ICON) OF APOLLO-CHRIST (BAAL OF HEAVEN) WAS INTRODUCED TO BE WORSHIPPED BY COMPULSION

The creation of the ICON of the Non-Jewish Apollo-Christ, born on December 25th after the likeness of Apollo, and celebrated as Tammuz at Ishtar time, completed the Abomination of Desolation that ceased the temple sacrifices and replaced what God commanded with a Pig. (literally Ham on both occasions)  And as you have already seen, the Apollo-Christ Icon is seen as simply a tranferance tool for the worship of the Pope himself. (Exactly as the Abomination of Desolation is said to be patterned)

Apollo is literally the son of Zeus. (The "bá' ál shámáyîm" that the phrase "shíqqûç shômem" literally refers to)

Lamb is replaced with Ham.  Passover (called the Blood and flesh of Christ)  is replaced with a golden cup in Rome and a wafer with the actual charagma of Baal on it, straight from the "Temple Of The Sun" in ancient Babylon as if lifted from a modern archeological photo?!?!

Sixth III initiated the PRACTICE OF IDOLATRY by creating Idols (we now call "Nativity Scenes") of it's Apollo-Christ at the first Christ-Mass, thus completing and fulfilling the description of the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION involving it's final key componant - Idolatry.  Those who refused to pay homage to this Icon were prosecuted as criminals by the Roman empire, thus fulfilling the prophecy that those who refused to worship the image would be killed. (which they were) In the millions.  Any prophetic scheme that ignores and dsmisses the overtly obvious by appealing to the entirely speculative, can only be described as basically dishonest or ignore-ant. No one would ever manage their investments with such a strategy, yet some seem to think it is perfectly fine for managing such a weighty thing as eternal matters.



WHILE THE ANTI-SEMITE IGNATIUS AND HIS THEOLOGICAL DESCENDENTS FELT IT WAS WRONG TO TALK ABOUT JESUS CHRIST AND LIVE LIKE A JEW [DESPITE THE FACT HE WAS ONE] THEY HAD NO PROBLEM TALKING ABOUT  JESUS CHRIST AND LIVING LIKE A PAGAN ROMAN !!! 

[How completely odd?]

 Sometimes a LIE is just too easy to spot

 


THE DESOLATION



1. THE BLOOD AND FLESH OF CHRIST IS DENIED


2. SALVATION IS TURNED INTO DAMNATION


3. THE SPIRIT OF CHRIST IS REPLACED WITH THE SPIRIT OF SATAN


4. BLASPHEMY OF GOD'S SPIRIT (CALLING GOD SATAN AND SATAN GOD)

CHRIST-MASS IS THE "INCARNATION" OF THE SUN-GOD INTO THE "HOST"


 INCARNATION OF THE SUN

DECEMBER 25TH IS NOT THE DAY THAT CHRIST CAME IN THE FLESH,

IT IS THE DAY THAT SOL INVICTUS (APOLLON) COMES AS CHRIST !!!

 

Rev 9:11  And they had as king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Rev 19:20  And the beast was taken, and ..the false prophet..which deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and worshipped his ICON. These were cast into a lake of fire

Rev 21:8  But the ..idolaters, and liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

It is not the "Incarnation" of the Biblical Christ that is being observed on the December 25th, Christ-Mass.  It is the "Incanration" of the Sun-god (Ha Sawtawn), i.e., "Addadon" (Rev.9:11), into the "communion wafers" of these Churches that symbolically "eat" and become one with the Antichrist's god from Babel.  That is why worshipping it's Icon, gives you "the mark" of Sixth III. (who officiated it's institutionalization at the Lupercale with Idols of an Apollo-Christ)


1Co 10:21  Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.


 

POPE SIXTH III REJECTED THE BLOOD AND FLESH OF CHRIST

Luk 22:13 And having gone, they found as He had told them, and they PREPARED THE PASSOVER.

Luk 22:15 And He said to them, With desire I desired to eat THIS PASSOVER with you before My suffering.

Luk 22:19 And he took bread (MATZAH), and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you: *THIS DO* IN REMEMBERANCE OF ME. [NOTE: PASSOVER SEDER]

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, *THIS CUP* is THE NEW TESTAMENT in MY BLOOD, which is shed for you. [THE SEDER CUP]

Mat 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready THE PASSOVER.

Mat 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve. Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY.

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; Mat 26:28 For THIS IS MY BLOOD of THE NEW TESTAMENT, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Co.11:24 and giving thanks, He broke and said, Take, eat; THIS IS MY BODY which is broken on behalf of you; THIS DO in remembrance of Me.

1 Co.11:25 In the same way the cup also, after supping (SEDER), saying, THIS CUP is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink, THIS DO in remembrance of Me.

THIS PASSOVER - Luke 22:13,15, Mtt.26:19
THIS DO - Luke 22:19,1 Co.11:24,25
THIS IS my body - Luke 22:19, Mtt.26:26, 1 Co.11:24,25
THIS IS my blood - Luke 22:20, Mtt.26:28, 1 Co.11:24,25

325 AD COUNCIL OF NICEA-

ROME: It is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this ODIOUS PEOPLE...

COMPARE:

1Jo 2:18-19 Little children, ..ye have heard that antichrist shall come, … They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, => that they might be made manifest that they were not of us <=.

QUOTE:

“We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews

“We desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews

ANTISEMITISM. PURE and SIMPLE.

Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being => aliens from the commonwealth of Israel <=, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one

WHY NO "CHRISTIAN" SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN HOMAGE TO ROME'S SOLAR-MASS

THE "CUP" OF GOD'S WRATH

SATURNALIA

 

QUOTE: "Odes, 3.17. ": "Tomorrow, attended by your household slaves from tasks released, cheer your soul with unmixed wine and a PIG but two months old!" END QUOTE (from: Horace The Odes and Epodes, C.E. Bennett, 1925, 237)].

 

 

THE CUP OF GOD'S WRATH

 

Rev 14:8-10 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of  the wine of the VATIC of her fornicationAnd the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship ...his ICON ... The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation;

 

VATIC-AN * The etymology in LATIN comes from "madness, passion, or WRATH" used to describe the female prophets of the Sybline oracles and other fortune-tellers in Rome who went into ecstatic states (compared to "madness") to speak their prophecies.

 

VATIC
Main Entry: vat·ic 
Pronunciation: \ˈva-tik\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin vates seer, prophet; akin to Old English wôth poetry, Old High German wuot madness  - WEBSTER'S ONLINE DICTIONARY

 

 ETYMOLOGY: From VATIC meaning "Mad", used to refer to "Madness of the Prophet". Oracle. Prophet. 

 From VAT as in "WINE VAT", in anceint usage the Prophet's "madness" often associated with or compared to drunkeness or intoxication. - Source: Cassell's Latin Dictionary

 

 

THE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS ABOUT ROME'S SOLAR-MASS TO APOLLYON

THE INCONTROVERTIBLE FACTS ABOUT "CHRIST-MASS"
(ROME'S IMPERIAL SOLAR-MASS TO APOLLYON, REV. 9:11)

(1) CHRIST-MASS is a Roman Holy day in honor of the SUN GOD of ROME.  

(2) It was begun by a man name SIXTH III, who CONTROLLED ALL BUYING AND SELLING, 

(3) and SPOKE AS GOD from THE CHAIR, speaking EX CATHEDRA 

(4) in an attempt to DENY THE FLESH OF CHRIST.  

(5) His CODEX initiated a march of oppression through history like a wild beast killing MILLIONS. 

(6) And while claiming to have THE KEYS to heaven they were the keys to  a BOTTOMLESS PIT of unending DEATH throughout history.  

(7) His "Image" has DECIEVED THE NATIONS with a FALSE Roman Icon, of (the BEAST) by it's own admission. 

(8) The "golden cup" of God's wrath comes complete with warnings about "DRINKING FROM IT" which are absolute and unconditional.  

(9)  These facts are clear and unambigious, no matter how any of us would like it to be otherwise.  The Protestant founders of America knew these texts well, and created the 1st Amendement of the US Constitution to PROTECT YOU from this MISTAKE.  

(10) The RELIGIOUS-REICH now seek not only to ENFORCE this dangerous practice on ALL AMERICANS, but they wish to NULLIFY THE US CONSTITUTION THAT PROTECTS YOU FROM IT, and force American TAX-PAYERS TO SUBSIDIZE THIS RELIGIOUS PRACTICE OF COMPULSION!

SAVE YOURSELF

Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation (genus,type, kind).

These are the words that PETER spoke to the people of Israel who had been victimized in Israel 

by the importation of this same THEOLOGY from BABYLON

during the time of CHRIST.



AND... if YOU CHOOSE NOT TO "SAVE YOURSELF" by REPENTING from the worship of THE LAKE OF FIRE

There will be no need to complain you didn't get "SAVED FROM IT" when you DIE

YOU KNOW THE TRUTH.  THE BIBLE TELLS YOU WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE.


THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's bigger than you think !

INTRO    THE STORY    THE REASON     THE CHRIST     THE MASS    THE SAINT    THE WISEMEN    THE TREE    THE CHURCH     THE GOSPEL    THE MAGIC   THE SPIRIT     THE JOY     THE SCROOGE     YES VIRGINIA    THE GRINCH   THE WAR