Who came first, an antichrist or Jesus?

a reply to: eight bits

I guarantee that the Egyptian disciple of John and Barnabas knew Simon Magus was Simon of Cyrene. John Mark was the one with the secret Gospel so I would take that into consideration before deciding you know what he was thinking. Simon of Cyrene was famous and the Simon Magus, disciple of John.

He was not some other Simon of Cyrene that Mark was writing about for absolutely no reason. I would say Basilides knew what he was talking about.

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

I'd be interested in evidence that "Mark" was whoever you're saying he is. Nobody else knows who he was.

The Secret Gospel of Mark is (if genuine) part of a letter from Clement of Alexandria (150 CE-215 CE) telling about three versions of a gospel of Mark's that Clement had seen. The letter is only known from a now-"lost" modern example.

I don't dispute that the author of Mark had some reason for writing about Simon of Cyrene, and for naming him. I do dispute that Mark intended to write that Simon died on the cross in Jesus' place. Even if Mark intended that, it isn't what ended up on the page. What we read is that two men went to the crucifixion site together, Simon and Jesus, and that one of them died there.

a reply to: eight bits

I didn't say John Mark intended on making it obvious just noticeable that it was Simon Magus carrying the cross. The switch myth isn't from him but he definitely knew that Simon of Cyrene was Simon Magus, which is all I said and that Basilides knew it.

story of John Mark is told in Recognitions of Clement of Rome and you want answers but not sources so you are never going to believe anything or learn what you want because of that fact.

That John Mark is not well known speaks to lack of Christian acceptance of ancient documents that say who is he is which if you did a proper investigation would find out is out of superstition and bias, not logic.

Next time someone tells you that they know of the existence of a document, assume they know about it and don't just state facts to make it look like I needed correction or made a mistake because I didn't. I would not have brought it up if I needed you to tell me what it is (secret Mark). I read Clement of Alexandria all the time in vol 2 of the Ante-nicene fathers series. I don't need to know that he wrote the quote that is cut off before explained and quite annoyingly.

You came with questions not me. I already know what you are asking as much as can be so if you don't want answers don't ask questions. Don't reject answers like a theologian who only wants the Bible to be a valid source of wisdom and act like you are seeking real answers.

We are in the world of mythos and I know the myths. You want history go read history it is well documented and just as (un) reliable as anything written by Jews or Christians but at least you have someone to tell you what has been decided as history and can accept it.

You can't seem to accept answers from anyone so go read and draw your own conclusions and stop being lazy and intellectually combative in an arena where you are seeking answers because you DON'T know something. From people who do at that which is probably the real problem, I have researched what you haven't and you will pronounce your opinion without having the information to make a valid one.

Homilies and Recognitions might be a long book but will answer your questions one way or the other. Refusing to read it because of superstition when it's the book with the answers you want just strikes me as ridiculous it's a book you don't just listen to an opinion and decide it isn't worth reading because it is pseudepigraphal it's possibly even deuterocanonical (secondary canon) to Catholics today and not "a fake" in any way.

It was written prior to Nicea at the latest and is penned by a skilled theologian and author of either Ebionite or Nazarene affiliation and quite frankly a better book than the New Testament.

By all means reject the only information about things you wish to know... in existence. Makes perfect sense. Beats actually reading something right?

a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

he definitely knew that Simon of Cyrene was Simon Magus,

That's the part I want to see the evidence for. There are a lot of Simons. Cross-carrying doesn't seem to be our Simon's style, and our Simon was alive afterwards (if he existed at all).

Recognitions of Clement of Rome

Which isn't genuine and could be as late as Fourth Century. Pre-Nicea? OK.

Next time someone tells you that they know of the existence of a document, assume they know about it and don't just state facts to make it look like I needed correction or made a mistake because I didn't.

We both know of the documents you've identified. Neither of us knows that any of those documents is genuine. I disagree with the confidence you place in them. Disagreement isn't correction or claiming you made a mistake; it's disagreement. Evidence cures disagreement.

It's not on me to authenticate the documents you bring up. If you'd rather not provide evidence, then that's fine, but you have no reason to complain that I remain unconvinced.

They both came at the same time, as light existed so did darkness.

a reply to: eight bits

They were made up together.

Here's a theory:

About A.D. 60, a scribe got ahold of The Psalms of Solomon, which predicted the rise of Herod the great (an evil man) whose purpose was to eliminate the Maccabean line (unlawful rulers, not of David's line). Herod the Great did this, wiped out the line. Next to happen was that a true son of David was to arise and take out the Herodian line, take the throne and drive the Romans out.

So the scribe made up a son of David, and backdated his birth to coincide closely to the last years of Herod the Great. The made up story was orally circulated amongst people familiar with the Psalm of Solomon, "those looking for the kingdom" as they are identified in the Gospels.

At the same time as the anti-Roman insurrectionist movement was started, the idea of anti-Christ (one who denies that the Son of David had existed in the flesh) was also necessary in order to identify the in group from the out group.

So yeah, same time.

In accordance to the Abrahamic tradition and Davidic(Bathsheba's firstborn) tradition, the first born's life is forfeit and the inheritance goes to the second born, therefore it was mandatory that Jesus die and the next in line James inherit the throne. So James was hanging out in Jerusalem waiting to take the throne. Either he died, was killed, or was alive still when the insurrection against Rome was smashed in AD 70.

Perhaps James commissioned the writing of a Gospel starring a made up older brother, hoping to rule from David's throne?

According to this theory then:

Gospel of Mark was written before the insurrection.

Gospel of Matthew written after destruction of temple, adding the prophecy of the downfall of Jerusalem to the words of the fictional character, but still offering some hope for the remnant that it could still be pulled off.

Gospel of John was written about the same time that rabbinic Judaism under Rabbi Akiba was putting forward bar Kochba as the son of David Messiah. John's message was to direct attention away from physical cities, mountains, temples, and thrones and focus attention on the Spirit and forget those earthly goods and glories.

In hindsight, it should be obvious that John's way was better than Akiba's way.

originally posted by: eight bits
a reply to: Elsemyazazededera

he definitely knew that Simon of Cyrene was Simon Magus,

That's the part I want to see the evidence for. There are a lot of Simons. Cross-carrying doesn't seem to be our Simon's style, and our Simon was alive afterwards (if he existed at all).

You want to see evidence but it's been 2000 years so there isn't any. I don't live or die by evidence of existence when talking 2000 year old events but I have read about Simon more than most and mythologically speaking Simon of Cyrene=Simon Magus and your failure to understand the significance of Simon being the one to carry the cross and not Jesus you are failing to realize, "Why mention the name of a total nobody who has the same name as Simon Magus/Simon of Cyrene at all then?"

Might as well just say some guy. Pointing out who carried his cross was probably written for people some to figure out and some to not notice. Looks like it worked.

Recognitions of Clement of Rome

Which isn't genuine and could be as late as Fourth Century. Pre-Nicea? OK.

Is genuine and who cares so could the Bible. Genuine is not a question you just don't accept it but the Nazarene and Ebionite sects DID.

Next time someone tells you that they know of the existence of a document, assume they know about it and don't just state facts to make it look like I needed correction or made a mistake because I didn't.

We both know of the documents you've identified. Neither of us knows that any of those documents is genuine. I disagree with the confidence you place in them. Disagreement isn't correction or claiming you made a mistake; it's disagreement. Evidence cures disagreement.

It's not on me to authenticate the documents you bring up. If you'd rather not provide evidence, then that's fine, but you have no reason to complain that I remain unconvinced.

You can doubt all you want but you shall remain as uninformed about Simon while I remain informed. I think I come out ahead because of this fact (that you "know" the intent of the Ebionites) and laugh as I think to myself who cares what someone who won't read them thinks?

Read it them pronounce judgement or your just taking people's opinions as fact.

I can tell you that scholars attribute it , GENUINELY, to the Nazarenes and Ebionite "Christians" prior to the Council of Nicea and don't render it spurious at all.

You must be a psychic super genius to tell everyone that it is not "genuine" and thank you for correcting the people who actually read it and translated it and declared it genuine Apocrypha. Wow, amazing.

a reply to: eight bits

There are a lot of Simons.

Here are some more Simons and bar Simons.

Eleazar ben Simon was a Zealot leader during the First Jewish-Roman War who fought against the armies of Cestius Gallus, Vespasian, and Titus Flavius. From the onset of the war in 66 CE until the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, he fought vehemently against the Roman garrisons in Judea and against his fellow Jewish political opponents in order to establish an independent Jewish state at Jerusalem. Although the Jewish defeat at Jerusalem cannot be entirely attributed to Eleazar ben Simon, his inability to establish unity with John of Gischala and Simon bar Giora resulted in a bitter civil war that weakened the Jewish resistance against Rome. Eleazar ben Simon and his Zealots' radical anti-Roman policies and eradication of the moderate temple aristocracy from Jerusalem in 67 CE also prevented any peaceful agreement with Rome to avoid the death and destruction which ensued in 70 CE.
Eleazar_ben_Simon

ETA
A little more on ben Simon

It can be inferred, however, from the geopolitical scene of ancient Israel in the first century CE. that he grew up in Galilee, the center of Zealotry. Zealots were shunned by the High Priesthood in Jerusalem prior to the revolt. This disunity with other sects of Judaism confined Zealotry to its birthplace in Galilee . Yet when the revolt broke out in 66 CE, the Galilean zealots fled the Roman massacres and sought refuge in the last major Jewish stronghold: Jerusalem . Since Eleazar was placed in command of a large army of Jews in the battle against Cestius' Legio, he had already risen to a position of power in the priesthood prior to his military success.

a reply to: eight bits

When I use my brain and think about it I see Simon carrying the cross and showing up in Acts and then dissapearing from Christianity a little suspicious.

Obviously he was being introduced to set up the showdown between him and Peter but someone decided to leave it out of the Canon and slowly it faded from the public.

Clement himself was exiled to a Slavonic nation and its been preserved in Slavonic.

Evidence exists but open minds are harder to come by more so than eyes that can see.

a reply to: eight bits

Not to mention that the epistle 1 Clement is said to have been written by Clement himself and maybe 2 Clement as well.

pthena

Thanks for the many-Simon links.

In your view, where does a James-centered theory leave the first man to be labeled "antichrist," Simon the magician?

Both the concepts of christ and of antichrist are older than the Christian era. Prophets and false prophets are found in the Jewish scriptures. The trick in accounting for Christian origins is how the concepts got applied to real people or to fictional people who were taught to have been real people.


Else

You want to see evidence but it's been 2000 years so there isn't any.

OK, in which case, we both have to accept that persistent disagreement is inevitable.

Might as well just say some guy.

Unless Mark thought his readers would recognize the man, or if the account is fictional, maybe Mark gave plausible concrete details to add realism. Simon was a common name; it's plausible that "some guy" picked from a crowd would have been named Simon.

Simon was also Jesus' chief disciple's name. Nice constrast between the nobody Simon who literally stands by Jesus at the end and the big shot Simon who is hiding somewhere, shamed by having denied Jesus three times.

Whoever Mark is, and regardless of whether this incident is fiction or a well-observed real detail, he's a good storyteller.

On the pseudo-Clementine literature, lots of orthodox people accepted them, too. That doesn't help us to sort out whether or not there was a historical Simon in the First Century, or what Simonians believed about him in the Second Century.

On 1 Clement, yes, it is said that Clement wrote it. However, the letter itself identifies the sender as the Roman church collectively. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually was written by a committee (common in bureaucracies).

a reply to: eight bits

In your view, where does a James-centered theory leave the first man to be labeled "antichrist," Simon the magician?

I've not read all the Clementine literature like Else has, but there may be a connection through the Flavian family there. I'm not particularly sold on my James theory myself, so...

From Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill comes the idea of a controlled message. Josephus adopted by the Flavian family as the one source of History for 1st Century Roman/Judean relations. The purpose of controlling Christian teaching would have been to reduce the impact of Judean zealot teaching which was pushing for insurrection. Given the large Jewish population, a general empire wide insurrection of Jews would have been disastrous, as indeed, it turned out to be.

The timing is important. The tensions were developing in the 60s. The story written in the 60s is of a man in the 30s, the kind of man you can't just go out and ask what his opinions on "should we rebel or not rebel?".

Both the concepts of christ and of antichrist are older than the Christian era. Prophets and false prophets are found in the Jewish scriptures. The trick in accounting for Christian origins is how the concepts got applied to real people or to fictional people who were taught to have been real people.

Switch now to Psalms of Solomon, written as prophecy. The Maccabees were not Lawful rulers because they were not of David's line.

They founded the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled from 164 BCE to 63 BCE. They reasserted the Jewish religion, partly by forced conversion, expanded the boundaries of Judea by conquest and reduced the influence of Hellenism and Hellenistic Judaism.
...
Independent Hasmonean rule lasted until 63 BCE, when the Roman general Pompeus intervened in Hasmonean civil war, making it a client kingdom of Rome. The Hasmonean dynasty ended in 37 BCE when the Idumean Herod the Great became king of Israel, designated "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate, effectively transforming the Hasmonean Kingdom into Herodian Kingdom - a client kingdom of Rome.
Maccabees

Psalms of Solomon has Herod "the king of the Jews" raised up and appointed by the deity to do the dirty work of wiping out the remaining Hasmonean line. He is an anti-hero if you will, an anti-Christ. He in turn will be replaced by the real Messiah of the line of David.

So I suppose the anti-Christ came first, before the Christ, according to Psalms of Solomon.

The John Epistles concept of anti-Christ is later, with a different purpose and definition.

It is a simple matter of good and evil.

You cannot have one without the other or you wouldn't see any difference between them.

In the end it is a matter of balance....

Balance would be neutral, no good, no evil....

Just life and freedom from fear.

Boredom for most.

Relativity.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

There is much in between polar opposites that good and evil have a middle ground, neutrality.

Animals are neither good or evil, just humans because of our capabilities of thought. Not very simple because good can be considered as evil as evil itself to one person while evil is a virtue to many religions. Instinct, the conscience and environment all play a role. Some people have no conscience and instinctively do evil because it's all about them.

a reply to: eight bits

If you want to know where the inspiration came for Christianity read Antiquity Unveiled, it's possible that Simon Magus is based off of Apollonius of Tyana as were other Biblical characters. He is likely just a myth.

Christianity has problems because Justin Martyr quotes the Old Testament hundreds of times and never the Gospels. The creators of Christianity were not interested in the truth, just creating a religion to control people.

Jesus is never mentioned in the DSS neither is Simon Magus. However the Righteous Rabbi was probably typologically used to create Jesus, the Lying Tongue as Saul/Paul and the Wicked Priest Caiphas. I don't see any more logical way to explain the story which is so similar to what the Scrolls say about the Righteous Rabbi. They are from the time Jesus "lived" but mention none of the NT characters even though they were the Nazarenes and that was the sect Jesus was educated by. Ebionites and Zadokites are also mentioned and the Ebionites were also "Christian" until Rome destroyed them (and the Nazarenes).

Too few people study the DSS which reveal much that is evidence of fabrication based on the "Sons of Light", the collective name of the community of Nazarenes/Ebionites/Zadokites.

originally posted by: Elsemyazazededera
a reply to: eight bits

If you are asking who is more likely to have existed in reality I would say Simon Magus is, no question. Even so far would I go as to say that Simon Peter and Simon Magus are not enemies in reality but one and the same why not?

Simon was a Babylonian by blood and a Samaritan so a Babylonian Jew. What is Catholicism if not full blown Babylonian Baalism with Tammuz replaced by Christ and you can find documentaries now that say he was the real first Pope.

A connection between Tammuz and Christ exists IN the NT when the women are weeping (like in the OT as they did for Tammuz). He tells them to not weep for him.

A Samaritan sect of monastics called the Jesseans also seemed to have a role in this, we know them as Essenes but they were NOT the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls community that lousy scholarship first assumed.

The truth is that circa 1CE the Mid East was lousy with holy men and Messiahs like Apollonius of Tyana and Simon Magus that we will never know.

I suggest you read GRS MEAD'S biography of Simon Magus, it's all there is from recent times on Simon.

I am of the opinion that the Crucifixion is a typology of the execution of the Righteous Rabbi of the Nazarenes. Evidence for this exists in the DSS and typology is the method used for writing in the OT so it just makes sense. Of course it's a hated theory but one backed by evidence and logic.

I call all people who have theological thought to reinvestigate when the doctrine of the antichrist has been born. It is not a DOGMA.

The Old Testament don't speak of a Anti-messiah to come. The widely quoted Daniel 9 is interpreted as it pleases contemporary mega churches.

Isaiah speaks of Assyrian who battles with Israel.

Daneil speaks of the last king of the North.

Where is the anti-Messiah anywhere in the Old Testament?

In the New testament (canonical edition) Jesus indeed speaks of many false christis. He doesn't speak of ONE final false-Christ though. He doesn't mention even remotely the option of some mark that throws into hell everyone, even those who obey God's commandments and love.

What we have as the fearful image of the beast who still isn't called antichrist, is only in Revelation 13. Let notice the author of the Apocalypse /Revelation identified as John by himself in ch 1, is still not identified to be the same person with John the apostle. The style of the Revelation is quite different from the style of writing of Gospel of John and the 3 epistles. Moreover, the first discovered papirus of only chapter 1 of Revelation is not before year 170 AD (forgot the exact year). 70 years after the death of John in conditions of illiteracy and persecution, and burning books, is not the best evidence that John wrote it.

The ONLY literal word antichrist remains in the epistles of John. There he speaks of many antichrists who are already around. Indeed, the first christians might have had enough reasons to believe Nero was the antichrist, if one is sought to be present before the coming of Lord Jesus. And they believed the coming of the Lord is around the corner, literally, every next day and year. Does it mean, they believed the antichrist already came and went?

That belief of imminent Maranatha come Lord Jesus, unfortunately, was abandoned after Constantine -era of Christianity was introduced. Not with theological reflections only, but also of burning books and monks who kept them, called heretics. It is not a good way to make doctrine sound reliable.

Today, with the pause of 1900 years in which all generations expected Lord Jesus and failed in their expectations, we should make a better review. Not commanded by doctrines that are nowhere near any dogma. But leaded by the sound reasoning on the BIBLE and reality.

I have the feeling the convenient image of the antichrist to come was speculated and exaggerated by the Roman-controlled Christian doctrine. For what purpose? To deny any possibility of fixing social /economic system, because whoever tries to bring God's kingdom on earth in real visible terms, would be automatically called " the antichrist" who negates the teaching this world is bad and temporal and has to end up soon in flames, in expectation of the next one. That is one possible explanation why emperors and church scholars embraced so much the idea of the evil one to come, and abandoned the idea of building Kingdom of God on Earth, described in the sermons of Jesus Christ himself. Other explanations may exist though, that go out of the earth plane of reasoning.

a reply to: 2012newstart

You could say Balaam is the OT anti-Messiah and that Paul is the new. You can support this with the reference in Revelation to Ephesus about eating meat sacrificed to idols, something forbidden by James and encouraged by Paul who calls it a teaching for the spiritually weak.

Jesus in Revelation condemns those who teach the doctrine of Balaam , eating meat sacrificed to idols (and fornication). I know Paul was not a fan of women so I don't recall him teaching fornication is fine, but he does teach it's OK to eat the meat.

a reply to: Muffenstuff

there isn't defined anti-Messiah in the old testament. We may want to identify a such using other names. Chuck Missler whom I respect for his profound Bible study, said the antichrist was mentioned under different names some 34 ...times in the Bible. Actually, NONE of them except for the epistles of John call him antichrist. (christ= messiah in Greek).

The so much quoted verse Danie 9:27 instead of identifying uses the HE 3 times. Is it one and the same person, is it the same with the Messiah in the previous verse (Jesus) or the same with the Prince to come (destroyer), or it refers to different personages? Many serious Bible scholars biilt a doctrine of the End times based on that single verse plus the Revelation. Good but not good enough. I still wonder, why didn't Jesus say it more explicitly when he walked the earth, if it concerns the eternal salvation of the last generation? How could he miss such thing as the Mark of the beast, if one could do everything correct but taking the mark would send him into the hell forever? If that was the case, Jesus would have said it. Reveation at best is a vision even if we accept the authorship of St John not of another John. Vision versus the pronounced words of Lord Jesus before the disciples when he walked in this life. Sorry but it doesn't stand the test of the time. As I said before, Jesus spoke of many false christs, and many false christs appeared in history. They may live today as well. It is really strange how the issue of many anti-prophets was turned into a question of one single world mastermind who would send to hel the entire generation that would be destined to greet Jesus when he would come. Perhaps some people don't want those multitudes to be saved, rather to tremble before a fictional image of antichrst and the option of eternal damnation, and thus to deny the salvation Jesus will send at the end of age. That is just a possibility one out of many, why should the image of the antichrist emerge in history, when there isn't Bible proof backing it, except for epistles written much later.

So, who is "He" in Daniel 9:27 and why that personage is not referred in any other text of the Bible prophecy? Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc as mum about the option the antichrist to send all living people to hell. Actually, Daniel doesn't say such thing at all. The interpreters put it into his mouth. Invader yes, abominator yes, antichrist false messiah - no.

Daniel 9 King James Version
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week heshall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Ezekeil's Gog and Magog war. A major prophecy that marks the dividing line between the reestablishment of Israel described in previous chapters of Ezekiel, and the coming New Jerusalem, described in the next chapters.
Where is the antichrist there? There is an armed invasion of Israel, that God stops providentially. Is Gog the antichrist then?

And why, the Revelation of John (John who) would put Gog and magog war after the millenium? That apparent controversy is set aside by most of Bible end time scenarios. One of the two is wrong. If I have to bet I would bet on the well proven text of Ezekiel, not on parts of ill preserved papirii that dated 3rd century claiming they were authentic work of the last living disciple of Jesus who died circa 100 AD.

Ezekiel describes the city of God in detail that is much greater than that of Revelation last chapters. One may ask, didn't the author of the Revelation copy and paste something. Anyway, Ezekiel's city of God is pretty physical, it stands where Israel stands today, and it appears after the war of Gog and Magog. If we seek antichrist it should be only in the war itself. It is strange such big prophets just missed the appearance of the fearful beast of the end times.

Daniel didn't miss it. But he is grossly misinterpreted to achieve predetermined goals.
Daniel speaks of battles between kings that will finally be put to end by God's intervention. Pretty close to Ezekiel's Gog and Isaiah's Assyrian invader. Where is there any anti-messiah?

And why, the Christian theologians in centuries would like to make it absolute necessity the appearance of anti-messiah before the second coming of Jesus? They were not stupid people, they had a motivation to do it. Moreover, they crossed over the millennium, making it a church doctrine although not a dogma. In that way, their intentions get clearer. They do not want an earthly kingdom of God, no matter what. Instead, they will label it the kingdom of the antichrist, hoping for more followers in that generation (ours probably) to reject an earthly model of kingdom of God??? If I am wrong,

if there are church scholars today who think otherwise, let they go forward and speak loudly, in a way to be heard by the masses! Not some scholarly texts in Latin in books that no one opens anymore, even though they might not be secrets. The pope said on the World youth day in Poland, he believed in the new humanity. Let he and the people around him elaborate what it means that new humanity, in terms not so much theological rather practical. Because the disillusionment of some 1700 years history when the Church was dominant political and teaching authority for civilized Europe, is too big to be continued any longer.

I feel uneasy, when on one side I am being offered literally a purgatory on earth, to "cleanse my soul", and on the other side, the fires of eternal hell with the warnings of any kind, the biggest one obviously the mark of the beast. Be it implanted chip or something more sophisticated. I do not advocate that and will never do! But that is plainly NOT in the Bible. Then, perhaps it is invented tool for tormenting spiritually the last generation in order to NOT accept the salvation offered by God. Salvation that concerns not only the soul after death but also the body in this temporal world, as well as the resurrected body.

A return to the roots of faith that are inevitably found in the Jewish tradition that keeps the prophecy in the Old Testament, and not in interpretations of that prophecy from the Middle ages uneasy history of the Churches, is a must do if we are going to accept any authentic fulfillment of these prophets. One cannot abandon the Torah and the Prophets in exchange of elaborated theological wordings in later centuries. We have to accept the original God's revelation is given back then, and preserved to our days.

To say that Jesus denied or modernized it, is the worst service of Our Lord. Jesus came to fulfill it. We need a fresh start based on both Old Testament and Jesus' ORIGINAL words, that are not secluded only in the canonical books written in 2-3rd centuries and stamped by Constantine in 4th. It is ill-understood religion. It does not negate the authentic faith of billions common people. But we have to question why on earth we have to believe what was stamped by burning books and people starting from the time of Constantine. Is that our faith or what? God is above that, really. One does not have to be theologian to grasp that truth about God, a loving one. As cardinal Martini said, God is not catholic. I'd wish today's catholics comprehend, as Paul said, that they still owe their faith to the books of the Bible, and not vice versa. And if we believe in Jesus the Lord, it is because He chose to be born from a woman in the Jewish community to fulfill those books. It was God's choice, and we'd better take notice where we are at, on which side.