Church of God News

COGwriter

Some text on the Shroud of Turin has been claimed to have been translated:

Death certificate is imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, says Vatican scholar

The Times – Nov 20, 2009

A Vatican scholar claims to have deciphered the “death certificate” imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, or Holy Shroud, a linen cloth revered by Christians and held by many to bear the image of the crucified Jesus.

Dr Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican secret archives, said “I think I have managed to read the burial certificate of Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth.” She said that she had reconstructed it from fragments of Greek, Hebrew and Latin writing imprinted on the cloth together with the image of the crucified man.

The shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral and is to be put in display next Spring, is regarded by many scholars as a medieval forgery. A 1988 carbon dating of a fragment of the cloth dated it to the Middle Ages.

However Dr Frale, who is to publish her findings in a new book, La Sindone di Gesu Nazareno (The Shroud of Jesus of Nazareth) said that the inscription provided “historical date consistent with the Gospels account”. The letters, barely visible to the naked eye, were first spotted during an examination of the shroud in 1978, and others have since come to light.

Some scholars have suggested that the writing is from a reliquary attached to the cloth in medieval times. But Dr Frale said that the text could not have been written by a medieval Christian because it did not refer to Jesus as Christ but as “the Nazarene“. This would have been “heretical” in the Middle Ages since it defined Jesus as “only a man” rather than the Son of God.

Like the image of the man himself the letters are in reverse and only make sense in negative photographs. Dr Frale told La Repubblica that under Jewish burial practices current at the time of Christ in a Roman colony such as Palestine, a body buried after a death sentence could only be returned to the family after a year in a common grave.

A death certificate was therefore glued to the burial shroud to identify it for later retrieval, and was usually stuck to the cloth around the face. This had apparently been done in the case of Jesus even though he was buried not in a common grave but in the tomb offered by Joseph of Arimathea.

Dr Frale said that many of the letters were missing, with Jesus for example referred to as “(I)esou(s) Nnazarennos” and only the “iber” of “Tiberiou” surviving. Her reconstruction, however, suggested that the certificate read: “In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year”. It ends “signed by” but the signature has not survived.

Dr Frale said that the use of three languages was consistent with the polyglot nature of a community of Greek-speaking Jews in a Roman colony. Best known for her studies of the Knights Templar, who she claims at one stage preserved the shroud, she said what she had deciphered was “the death sentence on a man called Jesus the Nazarene. If that man was also Christ the Son of God it is beyond my job to establish. I did not set out to demonstrate the truth of faith. I am a Catholic, but all my teachers have been atheists or agnostics, and the only believer among them was a Jew. I forced myself to work on this as I would have done on any other archaeological find.”

The Catholic Church has never either endorsed the Turin Shroud or rejected it as inauthentic. Pope John Paul II arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000, saying: “The Shroud is an image of God’s love as well as of human sin. The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one’s fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age.” Pope Benedict XVI is to pray before the Shroud when it is put on show again next Spring in Turin.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6925371.ece

While I will not go into the controversies now associated with the claimed burial cloth of Jesus, I will state that the Bible says that Jesus would “be called a Nazarene” (Matthew 2:23).

Christians were often called Nazarenes in the first (Acts 24:5) through fifth centuries.  Scattered Christians seemed to have been called/considered Nazarenes throughout history.

Those interested in learning more should carefully and prayerfully study the following:

Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes?
Arabic Nazarenes May Have Kept Original Christian Practices Were their faithful Arabs who held to original Christianity?

Angela Merkel

COGwriter

Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel took part in a celebration today related to the fall of the Berlin Wall:

Leaders in Berlin Retrace the Walk West

By NICHOLAS KULISH and ALAN COWELL

Published: November 9, 2009

BERLIN — Flanked by leaders from the former Eastern Bloc in Communism’s last days, and mobbed by a cheering crowd, Chancellor Angela Merkel launched a day of commemoration Monday of the fall of the Berlin Wall, retracing the steps of the first East Germans, herself included, surging to West Berlin 20 years ago.

Mrs. Merkel’s symbolic walk across the Bornholmer Strasse bridge, accompanied by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, and Lech Walesa, the former shipyard worker who led a fight against Moscow-backed Communism in Poland, came as Berlin prepared for an evening of celebration to mark the moments on Nov. 9, 1989, when the wall began to crumble.

In a light drizzle hundreds of people gathered to observe the moment, some recalling the crowds who swelled the former East German checkpoint at the Bornholmer Street crossing point after an East German official announced that, with immediate effect, travel restrictions would be eased.

Mrs. Merkel has told reporters recently that she was one of those to walk into the west that night across the gray iron bridge at Bornholmer Strasse. Many of the hundreds crowding onto the bridge with her on Monday were former East German civil rights activists…

“The wall is gone. Two Berlins are one. Two Germanys are one. Two Europes are one,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said in remarks prepared for delivery of Monday evening and released earlier to reporters.

I remember listening to a sermon by the late Dr. Hoeh at the Feast of Tabernacles in Tuscon, Arizona in October 1979 where he explained that Herbert W. Armstrong believed that the two legs of the Beast in Daniel 2, with its two feet (vs. 33), represented both West and East Europe (including specifically Germany).  He taught that this meant that the nations in Eastern Europe would ultimately not be under the power of the Soviet Union, but would become independent of it, and ultimately be part of a supranational European state.

A supranational state was approved by the last of the European Union members (the Czech Republic) on November 2, 2009.  The state forms officially on December 1, 2009.  Thus, the position of Herman Hoeh on this point has been shown to have been correct.

Right after the Berlin wall fell in November 1989, I was asked to give the closing prayer at church services in Fresno, California.  In that prayer, I mentioned that we were witnessing prophecy being fulfilled right before our eyes.  One of the reasons that I stated that was because many in that congregation seemed to be losing their zeal and belief about Bible prophecy.  Many who once were believers, no longer love the law of God and became scorners (Psalm 1).

Sadly, this has afflicted many throughout history.  The prophecies of the Bible are coming to pass right before our eyes today. Jesus taught:

34 But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. 35 For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. (Luke 21:34-36)

Will you be a zealous believer in them or will you let the cares of this world overtake you as Jesus warned against?  Do not be swayed by people like Gordon Brown who do not realize what this “One Europe” will ultimately mean for the Anglo-descended nations.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Europa, the Beast, and Revelation Where did Europe get its name? What might Europe have to do with the Book of Revelation? What about “the Beast”? What is ahead for Europe?
Who is the King of the North? Is there one? Do biblical and Roman Catholic prophecies point to the same leader? Should he be followed? Who will be the King of the North discussed in Daniel 11? Is a nuclear attack prophesied to happen to the English-speaking peoples of the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? When do the 1335 days, 1290 days, and 1260 days (the time, times, and half a time) of Daniel 12 begin? When does the Bible show that economic collapse will affect the United States?
Anglo – America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel Are the Americans, Canadians, British, Scottish, Welsh, Australians, Anglo-Southern Africans, and New Zealanders descendants of Joseph? Where are the lost ten-tribes of Israel? Who are the lost tribes of Israel? Will God punish the U.S.A., Canada, United Kingdom, and other Anglo nations? Why might God allow them to be punished first?

COGwriter

CGG’s John Ritenbaugh has instituted a variety of doctrinal changes within his group.  While groups like LCG teach that Christians are begotten by the Holy Spirit and born-again at the resurrection, CGG is now teaching a concept more similar to that of certain (but not all) Protestants:

How does one explain “this or that” regarding this “born again” question? It is very helpful to know that being “born again” is an entirely spiritual operation…

It should be easy to understand why there can be confusion over the words. We can interpret it only by what they can legitimately be translated into. They can be translated as “begotten again, “born again,” “born anew,” or “born from above.” And this may seem a little bit wild, but it is true. It can even be understood as “from a beginning” or “at a beginning.”

Now on the basis of how God deals with us in the rest of the New Testament, and after John 2 and 3, it must be understood as “born again,” and not “begotten again.” God never even one time speaks of us as being in a womb as an embryo or a fetus…Nicodemus’ error was sincere, and Herbert Armstrong’s error was sincere. (Source: Ritenbaugh J. Born Again Sermon, Part 2, June 20, 2009)

So while John Ritenbaugh admits that the terms translated as “born again” can be translated as “begotten again”, he has decided against the idea of teaching that God spiritually begets His offspring in this life who are then born again at the resurrection.

CGG has made doctrinal changes, as well as inaccurate changes (in my opinion) to prophetic understandings as well.  All should compare what their church teaches with the Bible.

According to Hislop’s The Two Babylons, being born again on earth is a long-standing pagan belief.  Hislop quotes Asiatic Researchers (Vol. vii, p. 271, London, 1806) that the Hindoo Brahmins boast that they are “twice born” men. Thus, the “born again now” idea apparently originally existed outside of Christianity.

Perhaps I should add that even in the second century (the century just after the Book of Revelation was written), there was at least one Christian writer who wrote that we are not to be “born again” until the resurrection. Notice what Theophilus of Antioch wrote,

But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection” (Theophilus of Antioch. To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter XV. Translated by Marcus Dods, A.M. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1885. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

In the third century, Hippolytus (the greatest of the early theologians according to Roman Catholic scholars) understood that we are begotten by the Holy Spirit at baptism. Notice what he wrote:

This is the Spirit that was given to the apostles in the form of fiery tongues. This is the Spirit that David sought when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished. This is the Spirit, the Comforter, that is sent because of thee, that He may show thee to be the Son of God.

Come then, be begotten again, O man, into the adoption of God…For he who comes down in faith to the layer of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; who denies the enemy, and makes the confession that Christ is God; who puts off the bondage, and puts on the adoption,–he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ (Hippolytus. The Discourse on the Holy Theophany, Chapters 9,10. Excerpted from Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson. American Edition, 1886. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Also, even in the fourth century, it was understood that Christians are first begotten, that Jesus was the first born of the dead, and that we become born again later. For even though he had other heretical ideas, Athanasius apparently understood this as he wrote,

For God not only created them to be men, but called them to be sons, as having begotten them. For the term ‘begat’ is here as elsewhere expressive of a Son, as He says by the Prophet, ‘I begat sons and exalted them;’ and generally, when Scripture wishes to signify a son, it does so, not by the term ‘created,’ but undoubtedly by that of ‘begat.’ And this John seems to say, ‘He gave to them power to become children of God, even to them that believe on His Name; which were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.’ And here too the cautious distinction is well kept up, for first he says ‘become,’ because they are not called sons by nature but by adoption; then he says ‘were begotten,’ because they too had received at any rate the name of son…He became man, that, as the Apostle has said, He who is the ‘Beginning’ and ‘First-born from the dead, in all things might have the preeminence…He said to be ‘First-born from the dead,’ not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own Body. Henceforth He having risen, we too from Him and because of Him rise in due course from the dead…He is called ‘First-born among many brethren’ because of the relationship of the flesh, and ‘First-born from the dead,’ because the resurrection of the dead is from Him and after Him…And as He is First-born among brethren and rose from the dead ‘the first fruits of them that slept;’ so, since it became Him ‘in all things to have the preeminence (Athanasius. Discourse II Against the Arians, Chapters 59,60,61,63,64. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1892. Online Edition Copyright © 2005 by K. Knight).

Thus the idea of being begotten when converted and being born again at the resurrection was an original teaching among professing Christians.

In addition, even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches:

Frank Schaeffer…calls the standard evangelical doctrine a “false bill of goods.” “The simplistic ‘born-again’ formula for instant painless ’salvation’ is not only a misunderstanding, I believe it is a heresy. It contradicts the teaching of Christ in regard to the narrow, hard, ascetic, difficult way of salvation.” (Clendenin D.B. ed. Eastern Orthodox Theology, 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2003, p. 268).

I consider CGG’s change also to be another one of its heresies.

Some articles of possibly related interest may include:

Born Again: A Question of Semantics? Many Protestants use the term born-again. Do they know where the concept came from or does it matter? Are you born or begotten upon proper baptism?
What Did Early Christians Understand About the Resurrection? Is there more than one future resurrection? Did early Christians teach a physical resurrection? Did early Christians teach three resurrections?
Deification: Did the Early Church Teach That Christians Would Become God? What does the Bible teach? Is deification only a weird or cultic idea?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?
Church of the Great God This group, led by John Ritenbaugh, says the bride must first be made ready (hence gospel proclamation is not its high priority). Might this lead to a selfish bride? This group also seriously seems to misunderstand end-time prophecy.

COGwriter

NCRegister.com (The National Catholic Register), which describes itself as “America’s ‘most complete’ Catholic newsweekly” reported yesterday:

Celibacy Issue Holds Up Apostolic Constitution

by EDWARD PENTIN

The delay in publishing the apostolic constitution, which will allow large numbers of Anglicans to be received into the Catholic Church, is due not so much to translation problems as the more weighty issue of priestly celibacy.

According to two reliably informed Italian newspapers, Il Giornale and Il Foglio, canon lawyers are continuing to define what has been a particularly unclear aspect of the new provision: whether married Anglicans could train as seminarians.

Andrea Tornielli of Il Giornale reports that over the last few days, the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts has been working to clarify this point. He writes that “everything suggests” seminarians in these future Anglo-Catholic communities “will have to be celibate like all their colleagues in the Latin Catholic Church.”  http://www.ncregister.com/daily/celibacy_issue_holds_up_apostilic_constitution/#When:11:39:45Z

Is it true that “everything suggests” celibacy for the clergy?

No, not everything.

Andrea Tornielli seems not to remember is that early Christian leaders, including the original apostles, including Peter (Matthew 8:14) were almost all married.

Furthermore, the Bible indicates that bishops and elders were supposed to have a wife and children to demonstrate they could handle a church as Paul wrote (Roman Catholic approved Rheims New Testament):

1.FAITHFUL saying. If a man desire a Bishops office, he desireth a good work.
2. It behoveth therefore a Bishop to be irreprehensible, the husband of one wife,
sober, wise, comely, chaste, a man of hospitality, a teacher,
3. Not given to wine, no fighter, but modest, no quarreler, not covetous,
4. Well ruling his own house, chaving his children subject with all charity.
5. But if a man know not to rule his own house: how shall he have care of the Church of God? (1 Timothy 3:1-5).

5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest reform the things that are wanting, and shouldst ordain priests by cities, as I also appointed thee:
6. If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not in the accusations of riot, or not obedient.
7. For a Bishop must be without crime, as the steward of God: not proud, not angry, nor given to wine, no striker, nor covetous of filthy lucre (Titus 1:5-7).

Now that the term translated as priest in verse 4, presbyter, simply means elder. Also notice that the Bishop is also allowed to be married. In Eastern Orthodox circles, while their priests are allowed to be married, their bishops are not.

Even The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that from the beginning, celibacy was not a requirement for church leaders:

Turning now to the historical development of the present law of celibacy, we must necessarily begin with St. Paul’s direction (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, and Titus 1:6) that a bishop or a deacon should be “the husband of one wife”. These passages seem fatal to any contention that celibacy was made obligatory upon the clergy from the beginning (Thurston H. Transcribed by Christine J. Murray. Celibacy of the Clergy. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Celibacy became an ideal for the clergy in the East gradually, as it did in the West. In the fourth century we still find St. Gregory Nazianzen’s father, who was Bishop of Nanzianzos, living with his wife, without scandal. But very soon after that the present Eastern rule obtained. It is less strict than in the West. No one can marry after he has been ordained priest (Paphnutius at the first Council of Nicaea maintains this; the first Canon of the Synod of Neocaesarea in 314 or 325, and Can. Apost., xxvi. The Synod of Elvira about 300 had decreed absolute celibacy for all clerks in the West, Can. xxxiii, ib., pp. 238-239); priests already married may keep their wives (the same law applied to deacons and subdeacons: Can. vi of the Synod in Trullo, 692), but bishops must be celibate. As nearly all secular priests were married this meant that, as a general rule, bishops were chosen from the monasteries, and so these became, as they still are, the road through advancement may be attained (Fortesque A. Transcribed by Marie Jutras. Eastern Monasticism. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume X. Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Thus, the celibacy requirement for clergy did not occur until the fourth century.

When the subject came up in the fourth century, a Greco-Roman bishop denounced it:

Paphnutius then was bishop of one of the cities in Upper Thebes: he was a man of such eminent piety, that extraordinary miraclas were done by him. In the time of the persecution he had been deprived of one of his eyes. The emperor honoured this man exceedingly, and often sent for him to the palace, and kissed the part where the eye had been torn out. So devout was the emperor Constantine. Having noticed this circumstance respecting Paphnutius, I shall explain. another thing which was wisely ordered in consequence of his advice, both for the good of the church and the honour of the clergy. It seemed fit to the bishops to introduce a new law into the church, that those who were in holy orders, I speak of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, should have no conjugal intercourse with the wives which they had married prior to their ordination. And when it was proposed to deliberate on this matter, Paphnutius having arisen in the midst of the assembly of bishops, earnestly entreated them not to impose so heavy a yoke on the ministers of religion: asserting that ” marriage is honourable among all, and the nuptial bed undefiled;” so that they ought not to injure the church by too stringent restrictions. ” For all men,” said he, ” cannot bear the practice of rigid continence ; neither perhaps would the chastity of each of their wives be preserved.” He termed the intercourse of a man with his lawful wife chastity. It would be sufficient, he thought, that such as had previously entered on their sacred calling should abjure matrimony, according to the ancient tradition of the church: but that none should be separated from her to whom, while yet unordained, he had been legally united…The whole assembly of the clergy assented to the reasoning of Paphnutius (Socrates Scholasticus.  Book 1, Chapter XI. A History of the Church in Seven Books: From the Accession of Constantine, A.D. 305, to the 38th Year of Theodosius II, Inluding a Period of 140 Years. Published by S. Bagster, 1844.  Original from Harvard University, pp. 53-54)

So as late as the early fourth century, the idea of required celibacy was opposed by most of the clergy.

In the 21st century, the Church of Rome has admitted that celibacy was not the original position of the Apostles and that it might change back:

Pope Benedict XVI’s choice as the church’s top official for priests has said that celibacy “is not a dogma,” and that the Catholic church “can reflect” on the subject.

The explosive character of the issue, however, was reflected in a “clarification” issued in the name of the cardinal by the Vatican Press Office Dec. 4.

Cardinal Claudio Hummes, 72, of Sao Paulo, Brazil, was nominated prefect of the Congregation for Clergy Oct. 31. He made the comments as he left for Rome in an interview with the Brazilian publication Estado de Sao Paulo.

“Even if celibates are part of our history and of Catholic culture, the church can reflect on the question of celibacy, because it’s not a dogma but a disciplinary norm,” Hummes said.

Hummes, a Franciscan, recalled that several apostles were married, and that the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Western church developed several centuries after the institution of the priesthood itself…”In the church, it has always been clear that the obligation of celibacy for priests is not a dogma, but a disciplinary norm. It is also clear that this is true for the Latin church, but not for the Oriental rites, where it is normal that priests are married in the communities in union with the Catholic church…” (Allen JL. Curial cardinal says celibacy can be discussed. National Catholic Reporter, Dec 15, 2006).

So, if the Vatican allows current and future priests of Anglican backgrounds to be married, it does have reason to allow it.

Whether or not the Vatican will allow those who wish to be in the clergy in the future to be married is, however, an open question.

Some articles of possibly related interest include the following:

Was Celibacy Required for Early Bishops or Presbyters? Some religions suggest this, but what does the Bible teach? What was the practice of the early church?
Did the Early Christian Church Practice Monasticism? Does God expect or endorse living in a monastery or nunnery?
Were the Early Duties of Elders/Pastors Mainly Sacramental? What was there Dress? Were the duties of the clergy primarily pastoral or sacramental? Did the clergy dress with special liturgical vestments? Can “bishops” be disqualified as ministers of Christ based on their head coverings?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

A Halloween scene in Dublin, Ireland.

COGwriter

Halloween was NOT one of the early festival observed by the apostolic church.  Practices associated with pagan religions were condemned by early Christians.

However, over time, this changed amongst the Catholics of Rome and its Protestant daughters.

Notice the following:

The fantasy and folklore of All Hallows

ABC TV, KTNV, Las Vegas - Oct 12, 2009 By Jack Santino
Provided by the Library of Congress

Samhain became the Halloween we are familiar with when Christian missionaries attempted to change the religious practices of the Celtic people. In the early centuries of the first millennium A.D., before missionaries such as St. Patrick and St. Columcille converted them to Christianity, the Celts practiced an elaborate religion through their priestly caste, the Druids, who were priests, poets, scientists and scholars all at once. As religious leaders, ritual specialists, and bearers of learning, the Druids were not unlike the very missionaries and monks who were to Christianize their people and brand them evil devil worshippers.

As a result of their efforts to wipe out “pagan” holidays, such as Samhain, the Christians succeeded in effecting major transformations in it. In 601 A.D. Pope Gregory the First issued a now famous edict to his missionaries concerning the native beliefs and customs of the peoples he hoped to convert. Rather than try to obliterate native peoples’ customs and beliefs, the pope instructed his missionaries to use them: if a group of people worshipped a tree, rather than cut it down, he advised them to consecrate it to Christ and allow its continued worship.

In terms of spreading Christianity, this was a brilliant concept and it became a basic approach used in Catholic missionary work. Church holy days were purposely set to coincide with native holy days. Christmas, for instance, was assigned the arbitrary date of December 25th because it corresponded with the mid-winter celebration of many peoples. Likewise, St. John’s Day was set on the summer solstice.

Samhain, with its emphasis on the supernatural, was decidedly pagan. While missionaries identified their holy days with those observed by the Celts, they branded the earlier religion’s supernatural deities as evil, and associated them with the devil. As representatives of the rival religion, Druids were considered evil worshippers of devilish or demonic gods and spirits. http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11289142

Even though it endorses it, according to Christianity Today, Halloween is clearly of pagan origin:

More than a thousand years ago Christians confronted pagan rites appeasing the lord of death and evil spirits. Halloween’s unsavory beginnings preceded Christ’s birth when the druids, in what is now Britain and France, observed the end of summer with sacrifices to the gods. It was the beginning of the Celtic year, and they believed Samhain, the lord of death, sent evil spirits abroad to attack humans, who could escape only by assuming disguises and looking like evil spirits themselves. The waning of the sun and the approach of dark winter made the evil spirits rejoice and play nasty tricks. Most of our Halloween practices can be traced back to the old pagan rites and superstitions…

Chrysostom tells us that as early as the fourth century, the Eastern church celebrated a festival in honor of all saints…Some people question the whole idea of co-opting pagan festivals and injecting them with biblical values. Did moving the celebration to November to coincide with the druidic practices of the recently conquered Scandinavians simply lay a thin Christian veneer over a pagan celebration? Have we really succeeded in co-opting Christmas and Easter, or have neopagans taken them back with Easter bunnies and reindeer? In a sense, it’s always been the same debate: do we ignore a pagan romp, merge with it, attack it, or cover it up with seasonal fun?…

However we must never be superficial about it. Evil exists. It impinges on our world. Jesus, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, was never naive about evil. Some, hearing the call for celebration of the light, would reassure all with a Disneyesque church production on heaven’s delights.

Unfortunately, the more gruesome aspects of Halloween observances carry a certain authenticity…

Those who feel squeamish about immature children identifying with evil should not be too lightly dismissed. Nor is it necessarily healthy for witches to be depicted as darling little black-magic miscreants, as if all evil were simply a silly folklore heritage for our enlightened contemporary amusement…(Myra H. Is Halloween a Witches Brew? Christianity Today, October 22, 1982. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/octoberweb-only/42.0.html verfied 10/18/07).

Of course, some Catholics and Protestants do condemn Halloween.

A Protestant group recently condemned Halloween:

Church claims Halloween trick or treaters ’side with the Devil’

Daily Mail, UK – Oct 15, 2009

For many children it is simply the time of the year to don fancy dress in the home or charming the neighbours out of a few sweets.

But a church magazine has shocked parents by warning their children would be ’siding with the devil’ if they go trick or treating this Halloween.

The article, called Halloween Isn’t a Treat – Don’t Be Tricked, warns parents trick or treating was amounted to ‘extortion and blackmail’ and ‘condemned as criminal the rest of the year’.

Residents in the picturesque Vale of Belvoir, which straddles the Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire border, were told in the article that the evening of October 31 was simply a ‘concentration on evil’ which made ‘fun of potentially dangerous situations’.

The article appeared in the Belvoir Angel magazine, which is distributed by the Vale of Belvoir benefice, a group of nine parish churches in the area.

But it’s sparked anger in local villages, where residents described it as offensive and upsetting.

Mariel Heald, a mother-of-four who lives in Stathern, Leicestershire, said: ‘The article is so intense, saying that anyone trick or treating is Devil-worshipping. We don’t think of it that way, it’s just a bit of fun…

The article says: ‘On this evening (Halloween), normally law-abiding people damage the property of those whom they should be good neighbours.

‘In some cases, they bring fear, especially to the elderly.

‘The practice of “trick o’ treat”, which is only using extortion and blackmail to prevent vandalism, is condemned as criminal the rest of the year.

“Celebrating Halloween means we are siding along with the Devil and all his works.”…

Peter Briant, editor of the Belvoir Angel, said the article had been written by a member of a local Christian group and had been approved by a team vicar before being published.

He added: “It is a warning that it can be dangerous. It is a slippery slope. It opens doors for things. If people don’t like it, that’s their opinion.”

Earlier this year a Catholic church in Stockport, Greater Manchester, cancelled a booking by a coven of witches for a ball at its social club which was scheduled for Halloween, after ruling the event was not in keeping with the church’s ethos.

In 2007,  the Rt Rev David Gillett, Bishop of Bolton, launched a campaign to rebrand Halloween as a ‘triumph of good over evil’ after declaring the occasion had been hijacked by yobs and turned into the ‘anti-social event of the year’.

Halloween’s origins date back 2,000 years to the Celtic festival of Samhain, which marked the start of their new year on November 1.

Celts believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred.

The tradition of trick or treating crossed the Atlantic from America but is believed to have its origins in early All Souls’ Day parades in England. During the festivities, poor citizens would beg for food and families would give them pastries called ’soul cakes’ in return for their promise to pray for the family’s dead relatives.

The practice, which was referred to as ‘going a-souling’ was eventually taken up by children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1220630/Church-claims-Halloween-trick-treaters-Devil.html

Interestingly, the powerful Roman Catholic archdiocese in Mexico City condemned Halloween observance as pagan in 2007, though it is still being observed by practicing Catholics there:

Mexico’s Roman Catholic church slammed Halloween as “damaging and against the faith” on Monday, as conservatives sought to stem celebration of the ghouls-and-goblins holiday and return to the country’s traditional Day of the Dead.

The U.S.-style holiday has made broad inroads in Mexico, with monster costumes almost as widely sold as the marigold flowers traditionally used to decorate relatives’ graves during Nov. 1-2 Day of the Dead ceremonies, when families build altars and leave food, drink and flowers for the dearly departed.

“Those who celebrate Halloween are worshipping a culture of death that is the product of a mix of pagan customs,” the Archdiocese of Mexico published in an article on its Web site Monday. “The worst thing is that this celebration has been identified with neo-pagans, Satanism and occult worship.”

The archdiocese urged parents not to let their children wear Halloween costumes or go trick-or-treating — instead suggesting Sunday school classes to “teach them the negative things about Halloween,” costume parties where children can dress up as Biblical characters, and candy bags complete with instructions to give friends a piece while telling them “God loves you.”…

Pre-Hispanic cultures celebrated a similar holiday in August, but after the Spanish conquest, historians say the date was changed to Nov. 1 to coincide with the Catholic holiday…

In another article, Onesimo Herrera-Flores complained that “Halloween, for a variety of reasons, has imposed itself on other nations, displacing native customs.”

Celebrating Halloween, he said, citing a church authority, is “like inviting Satan into your home.”  (Mexico’s Catholic church slams Halloween; conservatives call for return to Day of Dead. Associated Press – Oct 29, 2007 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/29/america/LA-GEN-Mexico-Church-Halloween.php

Halloween is pagan and leaders in many professing Christian churches know this.

Christians faithful to the original practices of Jesus and the Apostles do not observe Halloween.

To learn more, please read the following:

Is Halloween Holy Time for Christians? This article provides some historical and biblical insight on this question.
Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
Hope of Salvation: How the Living Church of God differ from most Protestants How the Living Church of God differs from mainstream/traditional Protestants, is perhaps the question I am asked most by those without a Church of God background.
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?

Jerusalem

COGwriter

It never ceases to amaze me how theologians can dismiss the fact that the early Christian Church clearly held practices that are considered to be Jewish, yet the mainstream churches (by and large) overlook this and fail to have the same practices.

Although they have their own biases, the Protestant theologians Philip Schaff and Johann Gieseler correctly noted:

The Jewish Christians, at least in Palestine, conformed as closely as possible to the venerable forms of the cultus of their fathers, which in truth were divinely ordained, and were an expressive type of the Christian worship. So far as we know, they scrupulously observed the Sabbath, the annual Jewish feasts, the hours of daily prayer, and the whole Mosaic ritual (Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Chapter 9. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc. 1997. This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner’s Sons by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.)

While the Jewish Christians of Palestine retained the entire Mosaic law, and consequently the Jewish festivals, the Gentile Christians observed also the Sabbath and the passover (1 Cor. v. 6-8), with reference to the last scenes of Jesus’ life, but without Jewish superstition (Gal. iv. 10 ; Col. ii. 16) (Gieseler, Johann Karl Ludwig. A text-book of church history, Volume I, Chapter II. New York : Harper & brothers. Date 1857-80).

In other words, it is known that the true early Christians in Judea did keep the Sabbath and God’s biblical Holy Days.

Eusebius states this about the succession of early leaders in Jerusalem:

The chronology of the bishops of Jerusalem I have nowhere found preserved in writing; for tradition says that they were all short lived…The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchaeus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision (Eusebius. Church History, Book IV, Chapter 5. Translated by Arthur Cushman McGiffert. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 1. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1890. Online Edition Copyright © 2004 by K. Knight).

However, this did not last as this church was eliminated. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 notes:

The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site (Wilhelm J. Transcribed by Donald J. Boon. Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Copyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

And while is now believed that Ælia Capitolina was erected in 135 (as opposed to 130 since the Bar Kaba revolt was from 132-135 A.D.), as the true Christians had to flee from Jerusalem then (some Greeks, apparently led by Marcus, who were not considered by Hadrian to be close to the apostolic Christianity that had been in Jerusalem, did go there, but again they were not faithful to the original teachings, more information is in the article The Ephesus Church Era), it is clear that Catholic scholars have dismissed the idea of unbroken apostolic succession from Jerusalem.

The Orthodox saint Irenaeus specifically seems to have eliminated Jerusalem as being faithful by his time (circa 180) as he wrote:

Further, also, concerning Jerusalem and the Lord, they venture to assert that, if it had been “the city of the great King,” it would not have been deserted. This is just as if any one should say, that if straw were a creation of God, it would never part company with the wheat; and that the vine twigs, if made by God, never would be lopped away and deprived of the clusters…The fruit, therefore, having been sown throughout all the world, she (Jerusalem) was deservedly forsaken, and those things which had formerly brought forth fruit abundantly were taken away; for from these, according to the flesh, were Christ and the apostles enabled to bring forth fruit. But now these are no longer useful for bringing forth fruit. For all things which have a beginning in time must of course have an end in time also (Irenaeus. Adversus haereses, Book IV, Chapter IV, Verse 1).

So while the Orthodox also consider Irenaeus to be a saint and Jerusalem to be one of the five “Apostolic Sees”, Irenaeus basically taught that God was finished using Jerusalem as a type of headquarters in this age.  Irenaeus’ “forsaken” statement is probably referring to those that fled Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 70 A.D. or at the latest 135 A.D.

Furthermore, note what happened in Jerusalem according to the noted historian E. Gibbon:

The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews; and the congregation over which they presided united the law of Moses with the doctrine of Christ. It was natural that the primitive tradition of a church which was founded only forty days after the death of Christ, and was governed almost as many years under the immediate inspection of his apostle, should be received as the standard of orthodoxy. The distant churches very frequently appealed to the authority of their venerable Parent, and relieved her distresses by a liberal contribution of alms…

The Nazarenes retired from the ruins of Jerusalem to the little town of Pella beyond the Jordan, where that ancient church languished above sixty years in solitude and obscurity. They still enjoyed the comfort of making frequent and devout visits to the Holy City, and the hope of being one day restored to those seats which both nature and religion taught them to love as well as to revere. But at length, under the reign of Hadrian, the desperate fanaticism of the Jews filled up the measure of their calamities; and the Romans, exasperated by their repeated rebellions, exercised the rights of victory with unusual rigour. The emperor founded, under the name of Alia Capitolina, a new city on Mount Sion, to which he gave the privileges of a colony; and denouncing the severest penalties against any of the Jewish people who should dare to approach its precincts, he fixed a vigilant garrison of a Roman cohort to enforce the execution of his orders. The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages.

They elected Marcus for their bishop, a prelate of the race of the Gentiles, and most probably a native either of Italy or of some of the Latin provinces. At his persuasion the most considerable part of the congregation renounced the Mosaic law, in the practice of which they had persevered above a century. By this sacrifice of their habits and prejudices they purchased a free admission into the colony of Hadrian…

When the name and honours of the church of Jerusalem had been restored to Mount Sion, the crimes of heresy and schism were imputed to the obscure remnant of the Nazarenes which refused to accompany their Latin bishop. They still preserved their former habitation of Pella, spread themselves into the villages adjacent to Damascus, and formed an inconsiderable church in the city of Bercea, or, as it is now called, of Aleppo, in Syria. The name of Nazarenes was deemed too honourable for those Christian Jews, and they soon received, from the supposed poverty of their understanding, as well as of their condition, the contemptuous epithet of Ebionites…The unfortunate Ebionites, rejected from one religion as apostates, and from the other as heretics, found themselves compelled to assume a more decided character; and although some traces of that obsolete sect may be discovered as late as the fourth century, they insensibly melted away either into the church or the synagogue…

It has been remarked with more ingenuity than truth that the virgin purity of the church was never violated by schism or heresy before the reign of Trajan or Hadrian, about one hundred years after the death of Christ (Gibbon E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I, Chapter XV, Section I. ca. 1776-1788).

It should be noted that, because of this revolt, Emperor Hadrian outlawed many practices considered to be Jewish. The Christians in Judea had a decision to make. They either could continue to keep the Sabbath and the rest of God’s law and flee or they could compromise and support a religious leader who would not keep the Sabbath, etc.

This seems to be consistent with an Arab account of what happened.  The following was written originally in Arabic by Abd al-Jabbar:

(71a) ‘After him’, his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter’s synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.

The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: “Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they.”

The Christians answered: “We will do this.”

(And the Romans) said: “Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab).” (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: “Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them.”

But these (companions) said to them: “You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;” and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: “Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab).” Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-’Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.” (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).

The above is interesting for a number of reasons. It shows that there were two group that professed Christ then in Jerusalem. One called “Christians” above, and the other (the faithful ones) called “companions”. The fact that the companions would no longer associate with the compromisers (who the Muslims called “Christians”) showed that in whatever area the above occurred in, there were definitely two groups.  It is also of interest to note that the Arab account suggests that the faithful may have had the books of the New Testament, while the others did not.

It is a fact that the Romans made a deal with those who were willing to renounce original Christianity in Jerusalem in 135 A.D. (see The Ephesus Church Era). It is possible that the above account is related to that (or may have been what led to the 135 deal).

It is also a fact that the original faithful Christian Church had practices that many now consider to be Jewish.  Was the true Church really supposed to change?  Was it to embrace non-biblical practices or retain those of Christ and the original apostles?

While the answer should be obvious, most theologians seem to have no clue.

Those interested in learning more should carefully and prayerfully study the following:

Arabic Nazarenes May Have Kept Original Christian Practices Were their faithful Arabs who held to original Christianity?
Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes? Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
Apostolic Succession What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view?  Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?  Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
Early Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries? Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim “saints” from both? “Saints” that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups?
Do You Practice Mithraism? Many practices and doctrines that mainstream so-called Christian groups have are the same or similar to those of the sun-god Mithras. Do you follow Mithraism combined with the Bible or original Christianity?
The New Testament Canon – From the Bible Itself This article, shows from the Bible and supporting sources, why the early Church knew which books were part of the Bible and which ones were not.
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise

COGwriter

Today is the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles for 2009.

As most who are readers of this page at this time are not at the Feast of Tabernacles now, I thought a series on the sites we attended might be of interest.  This is part three of the three-part series.

In 2000, my family went to Jamaica for the Feast of Tabernacles.  This was the first year that the Living Church of God (with that name) had a feast site there.  About 100 attended that year.  Although we took a lot of pictures, I only found the following one:

In 2001, we went to Tugan, Australia for the feast.  Probably around 300 attended that year.  This may have been the favorite feast site for our older two sons (they hope the Feast in Australia will be in this area again).  Below is the building services were at, and a park photo.

In 2002, we went to Barbados for the feast.  70-100 attended.  A hurricane almost hit and added additional excitement to this feast site.

In 2003 and 2004, we went to Kauai, Hawaii for the feast.  About 200-500 attended.  We stayed in different places each time.  There was teen bowling activity (1st photo) and Dr. Jeff Fall spoke (2nd photo).

In 2005, we went to Clearwater Beach, Florida.  Around 800 attended.  A hurricane threatened, but did not cause problems until the day after the feast ended.  That resulted in a hotel we were to stay being closed and caused a variety of problems, but we got through them.

In 2006, we went to Antigua, Guatemala for the feast.  We were the only non-Latin family to attend, so translations were provided for us.  Also, since I do not speak Spanish, my two sermons (the only live sermons not in Spanish there) were translated for the attendees.

In 2007, we went to Crown Point, Tobago.  Tobago is a small island and is part of the country known as Trinidad and Tobago.  At family day, two of our sons joined with the local church brethren to play cricket.  I gave two or three sermonettes there.

In 2008, we went to Evian, France and I gave one sermonette (in English of course).  In Evian, most LCG members stayed in the same complex and normally had our meals together.

In 2009, we are to be in Lihue, Kauai (again) for the feast–which is where we should be today.

Three articles of possibly related interest may include:

Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? Did they? Did Jesus? Should you?

The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians? Is this pilgrimage holy day still valid? Does it teach anything relevant for today’s Christians?

LCG 2009 Feast of Tabernacles’ Information Here is information on many Feast of Tabernacles locations for this year.

COGwriter

As most who are readers of this page at this time are not at the Feast of Tabernacles now, I thought a series on the sites we attended might be of interest.  This is part two of three.

In 1990, our family went on the Mediterranean cruise for the Feast of Tabernacles.  Over one thousand attended.  This cruise began in Venice, Italy, went to Greece, and to several of the churches of Revelation 2 & 3.

Here are photos of Venice, the cruise ship, many there, and the isthmus of Corinth:

Additional photos at or related to that 1990 Feast are included in Joyce’s Photos of Corinth, Joyce’s Photos of Ephesus, Joyce’s Photos of Pergamos, and Joyce’s Photos of Smyrna.

In 1991, we went to Victoria, British Columbia (Canada).  Over 1,000 (perhaps 2,000 or more) attended.  Below is a picture of Victoria Harbor and the children’s choir at the Feast:

In 1992 was our first trip to the Caribbean and we went to the Bahamas.  Over 500 attended.  Below is the children’s choir, as well as the view from our hotel room of the tip of Paradise Island:

In 1993, we went to Eastbourne, England for the Feast of Tabernacles.  Around 1500 attended that year.  Below is a picture of Eastbourne, as well as a castle not too far from the city:

In 1994, we went to Eugene, Oregon for the Feast of Tabernacles.  Over 1000 seemed to be in attendance.  While there we visited 3-4 places of historical interest to the old Worldwide Church of God (some photos of two of those are included in the articles 6. The Philadelphia Church Era and The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians?)–what struck me was that no one other than us was ever at any of those places.  This was our last year at a Worldwide Church of God feast site.  The first picture is a welcome to Oregon, while the second is near Florence Oregon:

In 1995, we attended our first Feast of Tabernacles site outside the Worldwide Church of God.  The Global Church of God site we attended was in Del Mar, California.  Around 700 were in attendance.  It is near San Diego.  The first picture is in Del Mar, while the second is of San Diego:

In 1996, we attended the Feast of Tabernacles in Penang, Malaysia.  About 70 attended.  We were one of only 2 American families there.  This was the first feast site I spoke at (I gave two sermonettes).

In 1997, we attended the feast in Hengelhoef, Belgium.  Several hundred were in attendance.

In 1998, we attended the feast in Branson, Missouri.  At this site, Dr. Meredith and I became better acquainted, which helped when the Global Church of God crisis erupted the next month.  The second picture is from a place called “the Holy Land” and is a short drive away in Arkansas:

In 1999, we attended the feast in Anchorage, Alaska.  This was the first time my wife or I ever attended the same feast site more than once.  However, it was different than the previous time (1982) and there was a significant reduction in the sizes of the glaciers I remembered from the prior visit.

In the 1990s, there were over 100 feast sites pretty much every year, and thus we tended to have a lot of choices about where to attend.  Though even now, the Living Church of God has over 40 sites.  Perhaps I should add that leaders that Christians consider to be saints such as the Apostle Paul and Polycarp of Smyrna kept the Feast of Tabernacles.

Three articles of possibly related interest may include:

Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? Did they? Did Jesus? Should you?

The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians? Is this pilgrimage holy day still valid? Does it teach anything relevant for today’s Christians?

LCG 2009 Feast of Tabernacles’ Information Here is information on many Feast of Tabernacles locations for this year.

COGwriter

The Churches of God normally have over one hundred  Feast of Tabernacles’ sites in various places around the world every year.

As most who are readers of this page at this time are not at the Feast of Tabernacles now, I thought a series on the sites we attended might be of interest.

I first began to attend the Feast of Tabernacles in 1977.   My first feast was at Squaw Valley, California, with an attendance of around 10,000 (all attendance figures will be from my memory of estimated attendance), and this was when I saw Garner Ted Armstrong in person.   In 1978, I went to Fresno, California, with an attendance of around 7,000.  In 1979, I went to Tucson, Arizona for the feast, with an attendance of nearly 12,000 and this is when I saw Herbert W. Armstrong in person and met Stan Radar.  In 1980, I attended the feast in Big Sandy, Texas and slept in a small tent–it rained a lot and this was quite wet–about 7,000 may have attended there that year.

In 1981, this was the first feast I did not drive to, it was Lihue, Hawaii, with about 1,500 in attendance–this was the first time my wife and I were married and attended the same Feast site.  In 1982, we went to Anchorage, Alaska with about 500 in attendance.

1983 was the first feast for either of us outside of the USA, as well as the first feast that we began to take slide pictures.  We went to Hoogeveen, Netherlands (all of my wife’s grandparents came to the USA from the Netherlands).  About 500 attended there that year.  We wrote a list of things that were different there compared to the USA. Here are two photos from that feast:

Windmill and canal near Hoogeveen, Netherlands, 1983

In 1984, we went to Sri Lanka for the feast.  About 100 or so attended.  Sri Lanka was so different from the USA that we thought that perhaps we should write a list of what was the same as in the USA as that would have been a fairly short list.  Here are two photos taken at that feast:

Below is the Riverina hotel where church services for the Feast of Tabernacles in 1984 was held:

In 1985, we went to Durban, South Africa.  About 1,000 were there.  Below is a South African village and a picture of the building services met at in Durban:

In 1986, we went to Pasadena, California for the Feast.  We did not take slides, but should we find the photos taken, perhaps they will be added.  One thing that puzzled me in 1986, was the fact that I learned that J. Tkach (Sr.) generally did not go anywhere for the Feast of Tabernacles.  Later, of course, he and his administration minimized the necessity to observe God’s festivals.

In 1987, we went to Rotorua, New Zealand for the Feast.  About 1200 of so attended there that year.  We stayed at the Geyserland Hotel where we saw geysers and boiling mud everyday.  The city has a sulfur smell, which when you are there a while, you get used to.  Below is the view from our hotel room as well as a countryside photo taken:

In 1989, we went to the south Pacific nation of Fiji.  About 200 or so attended that year, including Roderick C. Meredith, now of the Living Church of God:

In the 1980s, there were over 100 feast sites pretty much every year, and thus we tended to have a lot of choices about where to attend.  Though even now, the Living Church of God has over 40 sites.

Two articles of possibly related interest may include:

Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? Did they? Did Jesus? Should you?

The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians? Is this pilgrimage holy day still valid? Does it teach anything relevant for today’s Christians?

COGwriter

Catholics, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox tend to use the Roman calendar system for determining the holidays that they observe.

But we in the Living Church of God use the Hebrew calendar.

Jesus kept the biblical Holy Days from His youth and even until the day He died adulthood:

His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast (Luke 2:41-42).

And He sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the Passover for us, that we may eat”…When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve apostles with Him. Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 22:8,14-16).

Jesus kept the Feast of Tabernacles (which began last night) and preached about Himself on the Last Great Day,

On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out saying, ‘If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living waters’. (John 7:37-38).

Of course, since Jesus kept the Holy Days that are listed in the Bible, Jesus Himself clearly used the Hebrew calendar.

To learn more about the Holy Days and the Hebrew calendar, there are several article below that may be helpful:

Is There “An Annual Worship Calendar” In the Bible? This paper provides a biblical and historical critique of several articles, including one by Tkach’s WCG which states that this should be a local decision. What do the Holy Days mean? Also you can click here for the calendar of Holy Days.
Hebrew Calendar This John Ogywn writing explains why we in the Living Church of God use the calendar that we do and answers such questions as “Did Jesus Observe the Postponements?”
Did Early Christians Observe the Fall Holy Days? Did they? Did Jesus? Should you?
The Feast of Tabernacles: A Time for Christians? Is this pilgrimage holy day still valid? Does it teach anything relevant for today’s Christians? What is the Last Great Day? What do these days teach?
What Does the Catholic Church Teach About Christmas and the Holy Days? Do you know what the Catholic Church says were the original Christian holy days? Was Christmas among them?