It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian Double Talk on Trinity is the root of their being Dead in Christ

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



You say divine edict to rape and I say never such a thing was commanded by our Father.



I actually agree with you...

unfortunatly... the bible does not...





posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
More fairy tale nonsense. Pardon me if I laugh out loud!!

Except for Nature's Ways, which doesn't pay attention to humans, Heaven and Hell only exist in the mind.
edit on 15-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fairy Tales of Religion



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena

That terminology "revel in the wickedness of worshipping gods they have made to serve themselves and filthy desires" doesn't seem to describe the actions or motives of any body I know. Your fear for me may be a slight bit misplaced, if you think you have described me by such colorful language.


Perception is not necessarily reality although I would contend that it takes a certain special something to negate our Father and worship nature. Again I say, it is not those who can kill this body that we should fear or bow to, but Him who has power to destroy our soul.

If being absorbed back into the Earth is your idea of everlasting hope and life then certainly be ye to it but of a truth, Christ Jesus died not in vain and is risen being given power over life and death. Against the science and logic of history I cannot worship Nature as Father. God is one and Jesus is Son. There truly is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved.


Whether or not one perceives the danger of refusing God, we still feel the danger for those who refuse it. I feel the heat on my own neck often times too. It could have been so much easier but some of us have to touch the stove before we accept that it's hot.

best hopes, pthena



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



You say divine edict to rape and I say never such a thing was commanded by our Father.



I actually agree with you...

unfortunatly... the bible does not...



What kind of spirit in a man would argue that God commands rape, then agree that God doesn't command rape, while without citation finding that the bible does quote our Father as commanding rape?
edit on 15-5-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeFrippedMeOff

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



You say divine edict to rape and I say never such a thing was commanded by our Father.



I actually agree with you...

unfortunatly... the bible does not...



What kind of spirit in a man would argue that God commands rape, then agree that God doesn't command rape, while without citation finding that the bible does quote our Father as commanding rape?
edit on 15-5-2012 by HeFrippedMeOff because: (no reason given)



The bible says God commanded rape and murder...

I am not one of these people who believe that the bible is "the inspired word of God"... Thus the bible says God commanded rape and murder.... but i don't believe for a second that the one true God ever gave such a command...

A good portion of the bible was written by men with agendas....

Does that answer your question?

Oh right... you need citations....

Judges 21:10-24

Numbers 31:7-18

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Heres a neat one.....

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

And this...

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. Zechariah 14:1-2


Plenty more where that came from....




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Oh right... you need citations....

Judges 21:10-24

Numbers 31:7-18

Deuteronomy 20:10-14


Nowhere in any of these three citations is the commandment given for rape. Saving of women virgins for to wife, yes. Blanket rape and plunder and scar and mar for no reason? Not so, not in these three citations and nowhere in scripture.


Heres a neat one.....

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


Is this an edict by our Father to rape a woman or is this law passed by the judgments of men for to keep a woman from being raped and thrown away at the behest of the lusts of a man?

Hint: It's not an edict by God condoning or commanding rape.




And this...

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. Zechariah 14:1-2


Is this too evidence of God commanding that his people rape women or is this judgement passed against Israel for their idolatry and evil hearts?

Hint: It is not a commandment by our Father to go out and rape.



Plenty more where that came from....



Not really, not in truth. There is no rape at all anywhere. What we find is a time of cleansing after a war, provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage, and if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment and this according to the law.

What you and countless others are doing is disregarding the context and the very words while inferentially inventing the idea of rape and reading it into the text which is eisegesis and hermeneutically inappropriate.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
As per usual on these religion threads the nonsense makers come around and jump clean off the topic, and have made up nonsense from nothing but air.

This is supposed to be Trinity Double Talk making folks dead in christ, in the figurative bible speak. Unless it fits that theme, it really does nothing but highjack the OP theme and runs out into neverland.

If you don't have something to tell on Trinity being forged for Jesus, which is the only thing the Bible has, or the issues of the Jesus knowledge being dead in the organized church, then you likely didn't need to say anything.

We can always have the moderators click off a few pages of Off-Topic things, if nothing seems to work for these rambling themes



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



Nowhere in any of these three citations is the commandment given for rape. Saving of women virgins for to wife, yes. Blanket rape and plunder and scar and mar for no reason? Not so, not in these three citations and nowhere in scripture.


Moses spoke for God, did he not?


15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


SO... why would he tell his "officers" to keep these women for themselves? Its pretty safe to assume the intent was rape...


10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.

11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:

13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.


Take for thyself the spoils of war.... Again... pretty safe to assume rape was involved...

here is a passage from "the lord" directly saying he will give mens wives to other men for the purpose of sex or rape....

2 samuel...

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.


Is this too evidence of God commanding that his people rape women or is this judgement passed against Israel for their idolatry and evil hearts?

Hint: It is not a commandment by our Father to go out and rape.


Your hints are pointless.... You say Gods judgement... i say Not Gods word...


Not really, not in truth. There is no rape at all anywhere. What we find is a time of cleansing after a war, provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage, and if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment and this according to the law.

What you and countless others are doing is disregarding the context and the very words while inferentially inventing the idea of rape and reading it into the text which is eisegesis and hermeneutically inappropriate.



Call it whatever you like... the text is quite clear in almost all cases...

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man......

Women being ravished all over the place in the OT... IF you choose not to see it... that is fine with me. But know there is no explaination for what the OT God tells his followers to do that is morally acceptable


This God of the OT is not the same as the one Jesus spoke of...

This God is Not merciful, not Just... not fair, not even close...

IT is a wrathful envious jealous monster... And no God i would ever consider following...

In truth i would spit in this Gods face if given the chance....




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus
As per usual on these religion threads the nonsense makers come around and jump clean off the topic, and have made up nonsense from nothing but air.

This is supposed to be Trinity Double Talk making folks dead in christ, in the figurative bible speak. Unless it fits that theme, it really does nothing but highjack the OP theme and runs out into neverland.

If you don't have something to tell on Trinity being forged for Jesus, which is the only thing the Bible has, or the issues of the Jesus knowledge being dead in the organized church, then you likely didn't need to say anything.

We can always have the moderators click off a few pages of Off-Topic things, if nothing seems to work for these rambling themes


This ties in with your theme... being "dead in Christ"....

Christians believe this OT God is somehow justified in commanding his children to cause harm to one another in some of the most dispicable ways....

I would say those that believe God would commit or command such acts are dead in christ...

The true God has no reason to harm his children... or command them to cause harm in any way




posted on May, 15 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by MagnumOpus

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


Is this the pinnacle of your research? Some dead guys crappy thesis? How many times does somebody tell you that the Babylon trinity doesn't exist or confront you with a plethora of evidence for the trinity pre this "forgery". What you're arguing is pointless, honestly.


You can huff and puff till the sun don't shine and I won't pay any attention to your idea the Babylon Trinity doesn't exist.

The god making Trinity that existed before the Forgery games on Jesus were the Nimrod/Tammuz/Semiramis game and many others before that one.


You think I'm going to take your word for it? Cite your source? (You can't)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainNemo

You think I'm going to take your word for it? Cite your source? (You can't)



You should absolutely take my word for it, as that is what you expected of everyone for your nonsense.

I also did my homework and you did not. And it is really easy to find the details and sources for anyone truthful of intention.





christadelphia.org...


The Doctrine of the Trinity Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound 1994 Anthony F. Buzzard Charles F. Hunting

"Eberhard Griesebach, in an acedemic lecture on "Christianity and humanism" delivered in 1938, observed that in its encounter with Greek philosophy Christianity became theology. That was the fall of Christianity. The Problem thus highlighted stems from the fact that traditional orthodoxy, while it claims to find its origins in scripture, in fact contains elements drawn from a synthesis of Scripture and Neo-Platonism. The mingling of Hebrew and Greek thinking set in motion first in the second century by an influx of Hellenism through the Church Fathers, whose theology was colored by the Platonists Plotinus and Porphyry. The effects of the Greek influence are widely recognized by theologians, though they go largely unnoticed by many believers."

". . . the Trinity is an unintelligible proposition of platonic mysticisms that three are one and one is three" [quote from Thomas Jefferson]

The Greek mythology and pagan religious beliefs were derived from Babylon.

Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel 1870

"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's (Plato, 4th century BC) conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all ancient (pagan) religions"



Looks to be there is Plato and Thomas Jefferson as great sources, and who are you? Nobody compared to them.


edit on 15-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Trinity Concepts have been around a long long time



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Even ministers understand the origin of the problems, and for them Jesus, The Man, is the correct position:




www.jesus-messiah.com...


Few realize that the trinity doctrine that was adopted at the Council of Nicaea and thereafter molded into several Creeds (click creeds to go read), descends from Mystery Babylon via Greek philosophy in Plato's theories, and from Jewish Gnosticism, not from the Bible. Yet the Catholics all teach, that if a person does not believe in the trinity doctrine of Mystery Babylon, that person can not be saved. According to them, you and I can not be saved unless we believe Greek philosophy and Jewish Gnosticism that has reinterpreted God different from how God identified himself. This is wrong. Jesus did not ordain philosophers or Gnostic mystics, he ordained Apostles to be the authorities of Church doctrine. One great difference between the Arians, the Trinity-arians, Greek Plato philosophy, Mystery Babylon, and the true Apostolic Christians, is the Oneness Monarchian Message.

All Pagan religions from the time of Babylon, have adopted in one form or another a trinity doctrine or a triad or trinity of gods. In Babylon it was Nimrod, Semiramas, and Tammuz; In Egypt it was Osiris, Isis, and Horus; within Israel pagan gnosticism it was Kether, Hokhmah, and Binah; In Plato's philosophy it was the Unknown Father, Nous/Logos, and the world soul. But in Old Testament Judaism there was only One God, a numerical ONE. The difference between paganism and God's people has always been the Oneness Monarchian Message reinforced by the First Commandment that prohibits any theory of a plurality.

In our study, we will use a few verses to give a flavor of the One God message, and then give a lot of quotes concerning the trinity message. The true Apostolic Church rejects all the decrees and creeds of the Councils. For this reason we reject the trinity doctrine because it is not in the Bible but in the Creeds of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Our Creed of One God is plainly in the Bible, the Oneness Message.






www.bibleanswerstand.org...

Conclusion


Understanding the root origin of the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Pre-Incarnate Christ, helps one to see the man Christ Jesus more clearly in scripture. Greek philosophy, inspired by Satan, was an attempt to rob the church of the knowledge of the son of God.





Now, what have you become but the arrogant liar. imho The sources were aboundant, everywhere, logical, and from highly placed persons in history.


edit on 15-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Some people like the truth, others lie with extreme arrogance to mislead and make Beasts of Ignorance.



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
There is even more reinforcement of the source for Trinity and how it was used to corrupt the story for Jesus, and how the current organized church is false and sins against Jesus with the creation of lies that Jesus was god.




jesus-messiah.com...

How did the trinity come from Babylon to Egypt and then to Nicaea in 325AD? We shall now see the genealogy of the cult doctrine that has so many millions in bondage and captivity came through Jewish mysticism known as the Kabballah. Many are unlearned of this connection and because of it are blinded and remain lost without salvation in the cults of the trinitarians.

------

From Philo [20BC-50AD], to Athanasius [293AD-373AD], roughly 275 years, the Greek-Plato fermentation concerning God had reached its intellectual peak in Egypt. Judaism had fully molded to Platonism. Now it was time for the Christian Church to be molded. Would it reject Greek paganism, or philosophy as Apostle Paul called it [Col. 2:8]? Certainly we might question, that since Platonism was well known by Paul and the Apostles, why, if it was truth, that they rejected it and it took another 275 years for it to be accepted at Nicaea? Did God miss something here? Were his Apostles not led of the Spirit but those at Nicaea were?

-------

I would urge Christian and Apostolic researchers not to minimize the Jewish-Greek-Gnostic influence, Athanasius wielded at Nicaea, and the fact that he learned the trinity doctrine from the two sources of Hellenized Judaism [Cabalism], and Plato philosophy. Those researching the trinity usually fail to make discovery of the bridge and route of the trinity doctrine from Babylon to Jerusalem to Greece to Alexandria and then to Nicaea. The genealogy is very clear to those who research the background life of Athanasius back to Philo.





posted on May, 15 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus
 


I respect Thomas Jefferson's opinion, but his status doesn't make it more valid than mine. Interestingly enough you chose quotes from the time where the trinity was most vehemently denied, by a majority of people, including many prominent people. You could have a field day picking out these quotes. What you're using is a known fallacy, an argument from authority.

You still have yet to provide evidence of a connection between the Trinity to the Babylonian Trinity or any other trinity.

EDIT: I'll will read your quotes and links. It will take time to provide the proper rebuttal.
edit on 15-5-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
You will come to be known as the sinner against Jesus, and there is no way out of your tight corner:




jesus-messiah.com...

Jewish Kabbalahism has been the secret lodge of the trinity doctrine since the days of Babylonian captivity. Even prior to that eviction from the Holy land, the Jews worshiped a trinity in the form of "Baal, Ashtoreth, and Tammuz." So the trinity is not new to them, nor is it new that Jews would believe in a trinity of gods. Elijeh confronted the trinitarians on Mount Carmel. And after this encounter, the Prophets have each in their generations and in their Ministries stood firm against the trinity doctrine of the pagans and any adoption of it to be applied to God. The trinity did not begin in Nicaea, it was just adopted from paganism at that time as an explanation of the relationship of the three gods: the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost to the former two.

How did the trinity come from Babylon to Egypt and then to Nicaea in 325AD? We shall now see the genealogy of the cult doctrine that has so many millions in bondage and captivity came through Jewish mysticism known as the Kabballah. Many are unlearned of this connection and because of it are blinded and remain lost without salvation in the cults of the trinitarians.




All the world sees you are in the wrong-----so goes the Double-Talk of the Christians dead in Christ knowledge.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Churches that sponsor Trinity and their followers are corrupt.




jesus-messiah.com...

Nicaea, Where Truth Was Decreed Illegal
And Where Greek and Roman Orthodoxy Were Born

By Cohen G. Reckart, Pastor

----------

The Catholic Church decreed it was illegal to hold the Lord's Passover on the actual day in which he took bread and wine and replaced the ancient Passover ritual with a remembrance of his blood to be shed on Passover day. Thence afterward, the Catholic sects have repudiated the Lord's Passover on the eve of Passover and declared that anyone who does is an apostate.

Two false doctrines and two depths of the dark abyss of heresy that everyone must come out of, if they want to be saved. It is not a matter of a difference of opinion, it is a matter of Truth.

Out of Nicaea came centuries of hate and abuse of non-catholics who rejected these heresies. The "non-Catholics" were said not to be orthodox, that is, not subscribing to the decrees of Nicaea and the decrees of the subsequent six other Councils. H. G. Wells in his outline of history says that governments under pressure from Rome and Constantinople confiscated the property and possessions of the non-Catholics and gave them to either Rome or Constantinople. This theft has never been made right, and because of these robberies, both the Roman and Greek Catholic Churches amassed millions and millions of dollars worth of real estate, homes, buildings, business, ships, and personal possessions. These millions became the seed money to make Rome and Constantinople very wealthy and powerful. The Greek Orthodox Church has bloody hands equal to those in Rome and within Roman Catholicism.





posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by MagnumOpus


All the world sees you are in the wrong-----so goes the Double-Talk of the Christians dead in Christ knowledge.

So you have piled up a bunch of quotes from non-Trinitarian Christians. Tell us plainly: Are Trinitarian Christians the only ones "dead in Christ?" Or, are all Christians "dead in Christ"?

Personally, I would like to embrace Christians as fellow Pagans. If their gods have promised them certain benefits (resurrection, eternal life) and my gods don't offer these things, then ... actually, ... I don't know.
edit on 16-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by MagnumOpus


All the world sees you are in the wrong-----so goes the Double-Talk of the Christians dead in Christ knowledge.

So you have piled up a bunch of quotes from non-Trinitarian Christians. Tell us plainly: Are Trinitarian Christians the only ones "dead in Christ?" Or, are all Christians "dead in Christ"?

Personally, I would like to embrace Christians as fellow Pagans. If their gods have promised them certain benefits (resurrection, eternal life) and my gods don't offer these things, then ... actually, ... I don't know.
edit on 16-5-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



The "Dead in Christ" is not just the issue of Trinity, it is the other factors like why is the Lord's Supper so significant, what Essene Sprouted living Grain Bead means, what was he doing with healing, that he was an Essene Master, that the resurection was nothing to do with offcial death, etc.

Guess you forget Plato was not even close to Christian by living in 450 BC or so.

Then also, the Jesus Disciples are also non-Trinity and Jesus also.

You can embrace fellow pagans, and we'll be sure to mention you worship in Satan's class and fabricate nonsense. imho


edit on 16-5-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Jesus, The Man, is the heart of the theme for those times, and changing the Word with better Ways.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Moses spoke for God, did he not?


Did Jesus not tell the Pharisees that Moses allowed them to divorce because of the hardness of their hearts but that from the very beginning it was not so?

You know better than to make Moses out to be God.





18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


SO... why would he tell his "officers" to keep these women for themselves? Its pretty safe to assume the intent was rape...


Along with the rest of the context we know that the women were saved in and for marriage. We also see that this was not only not a commandment by God but that there is no reason to assert rape. That's your eisegesis.




14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.


Take for thyself the spoils of war.... Again... pretty safe to assume rape was involved...


Not safe at all. Certainly if this reads rape then it also reads beastiality. The cattle were given as spoil were they not? Your eisegesis is cruel and unfounded. The rest of the chapter should help you out in understanding that the virgins were given for marriage and they were actually protected by Hebrew law.

Too, this passage was not a command by God which is the point of the matter. Did God command rape? The answer is still a resounding no.



here is a passage from "the lord" directly saying he will give mens wives to other men for the purpose of sex or rape....
Sex and rape are not synonyms.


2 samuel...

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.


Was this not an edict of judgment against King David for his own adultry with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah?

This is not about rape, it's about the shame of having another man sleep with your wife(s) and all the people knowing about it.





Not really, not in truth. There is no rape at all anywhere. What we find is a time of cleansing after a war, provision of a home, time to mourn, marriage, and if need be, freedom and protection from mistreatment and this according to the law.

What you and countless others are doing is disregarding the context and the very words while inferentially inventing the idea of rape and reading it into the text which is eisegesis and hermeneutically inappropriate.



Call it whatever you like... the text is quite clear in almost all cases...


Almost all cases?
In all cases you have to infer which means it obviously isn't as clear in any instance as you'd have us believe. You can infer what you like but nothing you've provided is actual commandment by God nor is there edict or allowance for rape by God or anyone else giving command. You blatantly disregard the text reading of marriage and the law that protects the women from being "raped" and then cast away like dogs. That be to your shame but I pray anyone else here reading this would read the scripture in fullness and know the real truth.




Women being ravished all over the place in the OT... IF you choose not to see it... that is fine with me. But know there is no explaination for what the OT God tells his followers to do that is morally acceptable


There's no explanation for inferring rape where marriage and protective laws are written and that can be seen. Nothing you've provided supports the argument that God commands rape. All you're doing is confusing people with your eisegisis and belligerence apart from what Scripture really says.

As for the rest of your rant, I hope you find a way to get rid of that hateful spirit. It isn't doing any of us any good. I hope you find peace. I know you're intelligent and I don't understand why you've taken this stance apart from what we both know to be the real truth according to the Word. My best hopes for you, brother.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
One of the special ceremonies associated with Catholic Baptism involves Myrrh, which is the special healing gift from god that worked on Jesus and Lazarus. You can't be a full Catholic without being exposed to the Myrrh, which is associated with the "person's participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, so Chrismation is a person's participation in the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost".


Thus, even today the Myrrh is directly associated with Christ's survival. "Chrism" uses Myrrh.




en.wikipedia.org...

Chrism (Greek word literally meaning "an anointing"), also called "myrrh" (myron), holy anointing oil, or "consecrated oil", is a consecrated oil used in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Eastern Rite Catholic, Oriental Orthodox, and Old-Catholic churches, as well as some other traditions, including the Assyrian Church of the East, and Nordic-style Lutheran churches, in the administration of certain sacraments and ecclesiastical functions.







en.wikipedia.org...

ChrismationChrismation (sometimes called confirmation[50]) is the mystery by which a baptized person is granted the gift of the Holy Spirit through anointing with Holy Chrism.[51] It is normally given immediately after baptism as part of the same service, but is also used to receive lapsed members of the Orthodox Church.[52] As baptism is a person's participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, so Chrismation is a person's participation in the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.[53]

A baptized and chrismated Orthodox Christian is a full member of the Church, and may receive the Eucharist regardless of age.[53]

The creation of Chrism may be accomplished by any bishop at any time, but usually is done only once a year, often when a synod of bishops convenes for its annual meeting. (Some autocephalous churches get their chrism from others.) Anointing with it substitutes for the laying-on of hands described in the New Testament, even when an instrument such as a brush is used.[54]




Not really any reason for the church to be using Myrrh except to expose its association with the survival of Jesus.




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join