Download PDF transcript version

Passover versus Easter
Contention in early church
Quartodeciman controversy
Council of Nicaea – Hosted by Emperor Constantine

Transcribed and edited from video
www.answersoflife.com

The Debate Continues
Contention in the Early Church
Quartodeciman Controversy
Council at Nicaea

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Messiah our passover is sacrificed for us: (1Co 5:7 KJV)

How did the institution of Passover ever change to the celebration of Easter? The early first century church kept the Passover on the 14^th day of Abib, and that date can occur on any day of the week. What caused the change of this fifteen hundred year practice and tradition that really dates back to the Israelites leaving Egypt? What caused it to change to the fixed calendar day we now call “Easter Sunday”? We will examine the history of the early apostolic church to find the answer.

We started this series with “between the evenings” which is titled Part 5 on this agenda. We looked at “between the evenings” and discussed the details of when “ben ha-arbayim” is and contrasted that in Part 6 with “at even” which is “ba erev”. Then we went into the “Feast of the Jews” in the first century CE when Yahushua kept his last Passover. We looked at a number of scriptures particularly in the book of John that talked about the feast of the Jews, that’s where we find that terminology.

We have been keeping track of the corruption of the original Torah commandments for Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread. We have been watching that as we go through and have gone through some of the history of the Passovers until the first century when it reached a peak and apex when Yahushua had his last Passover, the feast of the Jews. It was full of tradition, full of ceremony, full of the direction that the Levites and Temple authorities wanted to worship, doing everything but worshipping the true, and honoring the true Messiah that had come to save mankind.

What happened after the first century? This is what we will talk about. Easter ended up developing over about a three hundred year period of time. The original disciples kept the fourteenth day Passover and I will show you from the historical record that there is plenty of evidence that shows that.

Contention developed in the early church, contention on a number of topics, this being one of them that we will put our attention on. The contention of when to keep the Passover, should it be on the fourteenth day of the month of Abib which can happen on any day of the week? Or, should it be kept on the Sunday which was the resurrection day? We will look at the historical record that develops and shows us what happened and how this change came about.

This all developed into something called the Quartodeciman controversy and we will examine that in some amount of detail along with the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE hosted by none other than Constantine I.

This is Part 8 of the series of presentations. If you recall when we started the presentation series we had a number of purposes and objectives. The one that we have not gone into yet was the final item on this list which was to analyze the evolution of Passover to Easter in the first, second and third century church. That is where we will put our attention on this time. An epigraph may be an unusual way to start a presentation that is about the Days of Unleavened Bread particularly the Passover.

Mark Twain was reported to have said “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Mark Twain has been attributed with this maxim as well as many others by the way; this is a well-known one that a lot of people have probably heard over the years. Mark Twain always gets the credit for making this statement. “It ain’t what you don’t know for sure that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

That might be an indication of where we are heading with the presentation material when we talk about Passover and Easter. The vast majority of mainstream Christianity celebrates this day of Easter, honoring the resurrection of Yahushua.

Early Church History
Geopolitical Struggle
Chaos and Persecution

• Emperor Claudius expels Jews from Rome in 49 CE
  – Gentile believers allowed to remain
  – Separation of Jews and Gentiles begins
  – Roman pagan customs prevail
  – Sets the stage for Gentile church leadership

We are going to take a historical tour starting in 49 CE in the first century; this was just after Yahushua’s crucifixion some twenty years later. The event that you see in the scriptures in Acts 18 was when Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. This is pretty well fixed to be an accurate date of 49 CE when this happened. This is what this account says:

After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth; And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
(Act 18:1-2 KJV)

It would appear that Pricilla and Aquila had to leave Rome by order of Emperor Claudius as well as all of the other Jews. Pricilla and Aquila have a real warm spot for my wife Linda and me. Pricilla and Aquila were the ones that proclaimed a more excellent way, or a more perfect way to Apollos in Acts 18 in the same chapter and a few verses later. That more excellent way brought Apollos to the Messiah and caused him to preach a more excellent way, or a more perfect way.

The point of this first date of 49 CE when the Jews were expelled, is that Gentile believers were allowed to remain; it was the Jews that were pushed out. This caused the initial separation, you wouldn’t think that any one of these events that I am going to talk about would be the deal breaker, but this caused an initial separation of the Jews and the Gentiles. It started in Rome of all places and we are going to see how important Rome becomes a couple of centuries later.

In Rome there were many in the Roman Empire, let alone in the city of Rome, there were many pagan customs that were prevalent in this early period of time. They had pagan holidays multiple times every month so people had to experience what the Romans wanted to do, and what the Gentiles wanted to do with pagan worship. Ultimately this will set the stage for gentile church leadership coming out of Rome. We will see how that developed as we go.

Really about the next year or a few years later, the Council of Jerusalem occurred. This council was a meeting, it wasn’t as if they always had board meetings in Jerusalem with the original disciples and apostles, but an event happened in Acts 15 that involved Paul and Barnabus. This occurred in Antioch in Syria if you look at the context.

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them ^{the Judaizers that were there}, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
(Act 15:2 KJV)

This question was about circumcision. There was a division also that was happening amongst the early believers and the Jews themselves. The Judaizers that said you first had to become a proselyte and part of the Jewish belief system before you could come to Yahushua. There were many that were proclaiming that kind of a gospel and of course Paul and Barnabus were fighting against that in their delivery of the gospel to the Gentiles in these days.

There is a separation that starts between the Jews and the early Believers. Now there is a group of early Messianist called the Nazarenes that we are going to spend a little bit of time on. In what unfolded, they end up playing a large part of what unfolded in the next century or so. The early Messianist were viewed as Jews even though many of them were not. They were Gentiles that had come to understand the Messiah, but the early Messianist were taking place and growing in their group size around the time of 55 or so CE. We see them mentioned in Acts 24 and this account is about a guy named Tertullus accusing Paul before Governor Felix.

For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes: (Act 24:5 KJV)

From this little account, the Nazarenes were known about, and must have been pretty well known about. Of course, who are the Nazarenes? They were the ones that followed Yahushua of Nazareth where they got this title.

Associated with them in some commentaries, are the Ebionites. If you look into this matter you will find that the Ebionites come up and sometimes they are associated to be the same as the Nazarenes. I want to examine that a little bit and perhaps dispel what I believe to be a false narrative.

The Ebionites are sometimes referred to as a result of Luke chapter 6 in a couple of associated scriptures, Luke 6 says:

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor ^{G4434=ptochos=beggar (H34=ebyone=destitute, beggar, needy}: for yours is the kingdom of YHWH. (Luk 6:20 KJV)

Blessed be ye poor in the Greek is this word “ptochos” and it means beggar, and if you look for the same word “beggar” in the Hebrew you will find that it is “ebyon” which means destitute, beggar or needy. Some try to make the jump by translating the Greek to the Hebrew that “blessed be the poor” are the Ebionites but I don’t believe that is the case. The main reason is that the fragments you find about the Ebonite belief system said that Yahushua was born of a man. He wasn’t the son of YHWH that had lived forever. Also that Yahushua wasn’t born of a virgin birth.

The Ebionites had a conflict with what the scriptures really tell us about the birth of Yahushua. I don’t believe that they were associated with the Nazarenes or the Nazarite’s who in fact, had the correct belief system that Yahushua was born of a virgin and he was indeed the son of YHWH incarnate in the flesh, and had lived forever.

When you look at this, the Ebionites come up but the Nazarenes are the ones I want to talk about. They were obviously known about in 55 CE. We will keep that in mind as we proceed through what will be three Jewish wars.

• First Jewish – Roman war 66 – 70 CE
  – Temple and surrounding villages destroyed in 70 CE
  – > 1 Million Jewish casualties (Josephus)
  – Siege at Masada – Sicarri Zealots in 72 – 73 CE
  – Vespasian abolished Sanhedrin, prohibited Jewish worship customs
  – Anti-Semitism develops
  – Nazarenes flee ^{Titus pause – Josephus Wars 5.9.1}

The first Jewish Roman war was the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE that was a several year campaign for the Roman army. The Temple and the Jerusalem area and all of the surrounding villages were destroyed at this period of time over this several year campaign.

According to Josephus more than a million Jewish casualties were had in this day.

At the end of the siege of Jerusalem at the end of the destruction of Jerusalem there were a number of Zealot Jews that took refuge in a place called Masada. The campaign continued to destroy and sort out the Jews by the Roman army and that occurred in 72 and 73 CE at Masada. Masada is a very interesting story worthy of taking a look at.

To make a long story short, the Romans built this huge dirt ramp up the side of what is about a twelve or fifteen hundred foot high plateau; there were Sicarii Zealot Jews that had taken refuge up there and ultimately committed mass suicide so they wouldn’t become subjects of the Roman army.

At this point in time, some of the other parts and pieces that happened in Jerusalem was that Vespasian abolished the Sanhedrin. Of course Titus was the one that was the general in charge of the destruction in 70 CE of Jerusalem. Titus Vespasian was his family name, his father was Emperor Vespasian and Titus assumed that Emperor Caesar role after his father’s death. When Vespasian abolished the Sanhedrin, he prohibited Jewish worship customs in this area particularly in Jerusalem at this point in time.

The end result is that obviously the Jews didn’t like that so anti-Semitism developed and it is also thought during this period of time when Titus was making his siege against Jerusalem in 69 and 70 CE, that the Nazarenes had a large presence there. You can read about this if you research the history.

The Nazarenes actually fled Jerusalem just before the final siege. What you will find when you look into this, Titus had a four or five day pause in the siege so he could pay his troops and he also wanted to intimidate the people that were in Jerusalem to let them see the number of troops that were there and all of their weaponry. You can find this in Josephus Wars 5.9.1; you will find evidence that there was a pause. It is thought that the Nazarenes fled during this pause, and there is evidence in other historical records that we are going to come to. I will show you that it shows us something like this indeed did happen.

Early Church History
Geopolitical Struggle
Nazarenes Flee

With that background about the first Roman Jewish war, we find this account of what was going on in Jerusalem with Eusebius. By the way, when you do the research, you find there are several Eusebius’s. This Eusebius is of Caesarea and the one that was present at the Council of Nicaea that we will ultimately get to at the end of this presentation. This is what Eusebius says in this account: I have added: likely Nazarenes, when you read the greater context of what Eusebius was writing about seems to indicate that it is the Nazarenes.

• The people of the Church in Jerusalem ^{likely Nazarenes} were commanded by an oracle given by revelation before the war to those in the city who were worthy of it to depart and dwell in one of the cities of Perea which they called Pella ^Jordan. To it those who believed on Christ traveled from Jerusalem, so that when holy men had altogether deserted the royal capital of the Jews and the whole land of Judaea, the judgement of God might as last overtake them ^{the Jews} for all their crimes against Christ and His apostles….
  (Eusebius, Church History 3.5.3)

You will see this flavor of writing as you look into the history of the early Greek Church Apostolic fathers that the Jews are being blamed for the crucifixion of Yahushua. You see here that there was an oracle, an oracle given by revelation before the war. The legend of that dates to Luke 21.

– Eusebius of Caesarea
– ca. 260 – 340 CE AKA Eusebius Pamphili
– Legend of Nazarenes escape

It’s interesting that this connection is there and perhaps you have also read that Matthew 24, Mark 13, has this same account. They have the same comment that we see here in Luke.

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
(Luk 21:20-22 KJV)

Of course when we read this we fast forward to today, and suspect something very similar to this will happen in the end, as I believe it will. The initial fulfillment of this well could have been with the Nazarenes and the other small group of believers that were in Jerusalem during this period of time of siege with Titus. We will see some other evidence of this as we go along.

The next item is the writings of Epiphanius of Salamis who lived contemporary with Eusebius that we just read about. He was the Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus.

Here is what he says:

• The Nazarenes do not differ in any essential thing from them (Orthodox Jews), since they practice the customs and doctrines prescribed by Jewish Law; except that they believe in Christ. They believe in the resurrection of the dead, and that the universe was created by God. They preach that God is One, and that Jesus Christ is His Son. They are very learned in the Hebrew language. They read the Law (the Law of Moshe)….Therefore they differ….from the true Christians because they fulfill until now (such) Jewish rites as the circumcision, Sabbath and others.
  (Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies, Panarion 29.7, pp. 41.402)

– Epiphanius of Salamis
– 310/320 – 403 CE
– Bishop of Salamis Cyprus

You get the flavor of this being written in 300 to 400 CE period of time of how the people thought of these original believers in Yahushua. The original believers they knew kept the Law of Moses but the true Christians don’t have to do that anymore. Of course they don’t offer any reason why the “true Christians” don’t have to do that anymore, they just make this statement in these accounts. You will see multiple examples of that same line of reasoning.

Early Church History
Geopolitical Struggle
Chaos and Persecution

With that we will take a break about the Nazarenes, but we want to talk about what is happening in the calendar just some 30 or 40 years later.

• Second Jewish – Roman war Kitos war 115 – 117 CE
  – Hatred, reprisal and mutual disdain.
  (You can see this is fomenting to a greater and greater problem)
  – Roman decrees provoked Jews
  – 450 Thousand Roman casualties
  – 200 Thousand Jewish casualties

These numbers are according to the historical records. The Romans weren’t very happy about what had happened, the Jews had given the Romans a punishing blow and of course the powers to be and the emperors in Rome didn’t take any of this lightly which resulted in a third Jewish-Roman war

• Third Jewish – Roman war led by Hadrian ^Simon Bar Kokhba Revolt 132 – 136 CE

It was against the rebel group which was huge. Simon was the name of the leader of the group. If you look it up in the historical records you see it referenced as the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132 CE. Incidentally, Simon Bar Kokhba was thought of as the Messiah at this point in time by his followers, and there were several hundred thousand in his army. These are all Jewish people and they thought Messiah had finally come, and it is Simon Bar Kokhba. Of course that didn’t work out so well for any of these people and this was another huge destruction of life and property.

– 100 thousand Roman casualties
– 580 thousand Jewish casualties
– 50 fortified towns and 950 local villages razed
– Judean communities depopulated
– Anti-Semitism is Roman mantra

One of the big things that happened is that it wasn’t just about Jerusalem and the immediate area, it was 50 fortified towns and 950 local villages involved and they were all razed. The entire surrounding area, a good part of the land that we would know of as Israel today, was leveled by this guy named Hadrian.

Simon Bar Kokhba nearly beat them by the way. The Romans had a lot of set back with the Bar Kokhba army. They were real clever in their approach; they had good military assets and were even able to acquire some of the Roman assets through some of their stealthy methods. Simon Bar Kokhba nearly beat the Romans but the Romans kept throwing more military resources and were finally able to prevail.

Obviously this created a depopulation of the area from Judaism from the Jewish community and even greater anti-Semitism is developed and that becomes really the Roman mantra in that the Jews were really a second class race. Anything that the Jews did was considered an anathema. What you find is that the true believers in these days continued to follow as Yahushua set the tone and example, these Jewish practices. It didn’t matter if you a Jew or not, if you were a Gentile and a follower of Yahushua, you were thought of as part of this “Jewish culture” and you were thought of as being separated out and oppressed.

• Jerusalem leveled by Hadrian’s army
  – AKA Caesar Traianus Hadrianus
  – Renamed Aelia Capitolina ^{new city} until 638 CE
  – New temple built and dedicated to Jupiter
  – Jews and Christians expelled until Edict of Toleration in 311 CE
  – All things “Jewish” condemned and illegal
  Sabbath, holy days, circumcision
  Early Messianist viewed as a branch of Judaism

Hadrian’s story is a pretty interesting one. Jerusalem was leveled by Hadrian’s army at this point; the Romans had a belly full of all of these Jewish and Roman wars so Hadrian wanted to be done with it once and for all. Hadrian was a Caesar in these days and Traianus Hadrianus was his Caesar name. After he had taken Jerusalem this time, of course Titus leveled it the first time, but Hadrian actually flattened the whole top of the Temple Mount to what we see today. That is why it is a nice flat surface up there.

Hadrian renamed the city to Aelia Capitolina meaning new city. He thought the idea is that he would get rid of the name Jerusalem and put a new name on it. Of course he didn’t know that this was the apple of YHWH’s eye, but he renamed it Aelia Capitolina and it stayed that until 638 CE. When the Arabs came through they overtook it and ultimately built the Muslim shrines that we see there today.

What Hadrian did do since the Temple was torn down and the area was flattened, was that he built a new pagan temple and dedicated it to Jupiter. You can find the evidence of it in the historical record that he wrote about. We don’t see any evidence of anything left of it today because when the Arabs came, they tore all of it down and rebuilt their own Muslim shrines. What we do have from Hadrian’s history is a second temple that Hadrian built in a place called Baalbek which is in Lebanon. It turns out that the temple of Baalbek in Lebanon is partially standing to this day. There have been a lot of archeological projects that have examined the Baalbek temple. It turns out that a lot is known about it and it’s easy to make a blueprint of what it ultimately looked like. That blueprint, when you take the same dimensional area of Baalbek, it lies perfectly on top of the Temple Mount as we see it today.

The other thing that is interesting about it is that there was a statue of Hadrian riding on his horse that was out in front of the Baalbek Temple and when you lay that out at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, that statue would be right on top of a place called the Al-Kas Fountain. If you know the geography of what that looks like up there, the Al-Kas Fountain is just north of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and it is thought by people that have studied this, including my wife and I, believe that where the Al-Kas Fountain is may well be where the original temple and the Holy of Holies was. It’s an interesting study and certainly the conjecture of where the original Temple was is indeed that because there is lots of good opinion by some well researched scholars on the alternatives. Hadrian built this temple there, obviously it is torn down now but it is an interesting side research project for people that have such interest.

The other aspects of Hadrian is that he got rid of all things and condemned illegal all things Jewish including the Sabbath, holy days, and circumcision. The early Messianist were viewed as a branch of Judaism. It didn’t make any difference if they were Jews or not, just because people kept the Sabbath or the Holy Days meant that they were a branch of Judaism. That is how the society had developed in those days.

The separation and isolation and oppression continued up until a time that Constantine I settled it by something called the Edict of Toleration in 311 CE. This separation was causing lots of division and Constantine had good intentions to try to allow people to worship what they wanted to but in reality, so long as it agreed with Constantine is what it boils down to.

The Edict of Toleration was signed by Constantine in 311 CE and then in 325 CE is when we have this Counsel of Nicaea to settle the question of when Passover or Easter is. All of these parts are in play here and we also have some other insight in Eusebius’ writings.

Early Church History
Geopolitical Struggle
Nazarenes Apostatize

• And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city (Capitolina Arius) which subsequently arose, changed its name and was called Aelia, in honor of the emperor Aelius Adrian (We would pronounce his name Hadrian, Aelius was the family name so that is where we get Aelius Capitolina, or where he got it). And as the Church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the Government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.
  (Eusebius – Nicene Post Nicene Fathers 2^nd, I, pp. 177-178)

– ca. 135
– Marcus abandoned apostolic traditions for Roman compliance
– Nazarenes apostatize

This character Marcus comes on the scene here and notice that the Church there was now composed of “Gentiles Church” at Jerusalem. The city became re-inhabited without any Jews there but the Gentiles moved in and the next bishop that comes in place is this guy named Marcus. We find out a little more about him in a book that I discovered that is noted here.

• The Nazarenes had only one way left to escape the common proscription ^{prohibition of Mosaic Law which was in place}, and the force of truth was on this occasion assisted by the influence of temporal advantages. They elected Marcus for their bishop. A prelate ^{ecclesiastical dignitary} 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.
  (Gibbon E, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume 1. Chapter XV, Section 1. Ca. 1776-1788)

The Nazarenes had left; we see that from the earlier record. They were still around and extant but they were struggling because they were keeping the Sabbath, the Holy Days; they were keeping the Law of Moses so they were being persecuted against. Circumstances had worked out that they were going to be given an opportunity to change.

So the Nazarenes elected Marcus for their bishop, this guy that was there at Jerusalem. Isn’t it remarkable? Based on what we know of these Nazarenes now, it seems like they left during the time of Titus, they went into hiding being persecuted and oppressed but they needed to come out and have some way to support themselves. They wanted to go back to Jerusalem and this guy Marcus is there, he was able to convince them so they could come back with no problem so long as they renounced the Mosaic Law practices that they had had for the previous hundred years or so. It is most amazing what happened here according to this account.

Early Church History
Passover Date Controversy Develops

What we see as a result of this is that the Passover date controversy will start to develop now. With that background we will read several different accounts. There are historical records and a lot of material about this but some of the accounts are fragmentary they don’t have the full amount of writing. Here is one from a guy named Epiphanius in his writings about heresies.

• The controversy arose ^{regarding Quartodeciman Passover, the 14th Passover} after the exodus of the bishops of the circumcision ^{The Nazarenes and the Believers in Jerusalem that left} (135 Ce) and it has continued until our time…. ^{Added altogether, the insinuation is that the original Bishops prior to Marcus say} you shall not change the calculation of time, but you shall celebrate it at the same time as your brethren who came out from the circumcision ^{the Jews}. With them observe the Passover.
  (Epiphanius, Adversus haereses pg 42, 357-358)

– Epiphanius of Salamis 310-403 CE
– Based on document known as Apostolic Constitutions
– Practiced Quartodeciman Passover

Here is one of the early parts of the controversy that there was some dialogue and some controversy that was developing of when you should keep the Passover. Are you going to keep it according to the original recipe on the 14^th of Abib? Or are you going to keep it in some different way? This is all a reference talking about these bishops that left likely to the 15^th Apostolic Bishops that administer to the Church of Jerusalem until 135 CE as well as the Nazarenes that were there. All of these people, clearly from this account you should see that these original Believers or leaders practice what is called the Quartodeciman Passover. Quarto meaning four and deciman meaning ten means the fourteen Passover.

Paul obviously wrote before this but Paul anticipated some of these kinds of problems and we can read in the scripture what the record shows us in Acts 20.

^{Paul is speaking} For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things ^distorted, to draw away disciples after them. (Act 20:29-30 KJV)

This is most amazing insight from Paul, of course it happened, and we are seeing it happen with the history that we are reviewing here. It happens up until today, we are seeing perverse and distorted things trying to draw disciples away to some other cause.

As a note, you will see reference material as I go through the presentation. There is an interesting book called From Sabbath to Sunday, it is a Historical investigation of the Rise of Sunday Observance in Early Christianity.

This particular book is an interesting one and is well known as a top quality research document by a guy named Samuele Bacchiocchi. Bacchiocchi was a 7^th Day Adventist and died around 2010, but his book Sabbath to Sunday is certainly about the change of the Sabbath to Sunday which paralleled these events. Some of these same writers were writing about them too. I’m talking about the change of the Passover to Easter, but at the same time the Sabbath to Sunday was happening. There is a lot of good history in Bacchiocchi’s book of what was going on at this time if you have an interest.

Two Groups Emerge
East West Doctrinal Rivalry

• Western Bishops
• Rome and Alexandria included Jerusalem
• Allegorical apologetics
• Greek and Roman leadership
• Political alignment to Rome
  Not the same as East – West Schism in 1054 CE
  Split between Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches

What developed out of all of this to shorten the story down was that there became what I am going to call an East West doctrinal Rivalry. There were a group of Western Bishops and they lived in Rome and Alexandria. They also included Jerusalem because all things Jewish had been extracted from Jerusalem at this point, and only gentile thinking fundamentally was back in the mix in Jerusalem.

The Western Bishops comprised largely in Rome and Alexandria. Remember when we started with Priscilla and Aquila? That was one of the early indications that Rome got purged with anything that had to do with Jewish culture and traditions.

The Western Bishops were gentiles, Greek and Roman at this point in time and they started looking at the scriptures particularly the New Testament with allegorical apologetics. They weren’t looking at the letter of the law, or what the instructions are, they had work-around to a lot of what was in the law. They took it figuratively, in other words, they were politically aligned with Rome. That is a noteworthy distinction when you start to become politically inclined from a spiritual standpoint. With the government there is likely going to be problems and there sure were.

I would say to not to confuse this east-west doctrinal rivalry that I am talking about here in the first few centuries CE, with one that’s well known called East-West Schism which happened around 1054 CE. The East-West Schism that happened in the eleventh century here was a split between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches so don’t confuse the two. I am using east-west rivalry to separate who the players are so you have an understanding of it.

Western Bishops	Eastern Bishops
Rome and Alexandria included Jerusalem	Asia Minor
Allegorical apologetics	Literal apologetics
Greek and Roman leadership	Jews and Gentiles
Political alignment to Rome	Spiritual outcasts
Note: not the same as East-West Schism in 1054 CE Split between Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches	Labeled as Jews Kept Sabbath, Holy Days and 14th Passover

In contrast, the East Bishops were those largely in what we know of as Asia Minor and it is the place that we see in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 with the report card of the seven churches. Those seven assemblies all have an asset and liability mentioned, they have what they have done well and what they need to improve on. They have an admonition directly from Yahushua to five of the seven; two of the seven didn’t have any admonition, Smyrna and Philadelphia.

The point of it is that these groups in Asia Minor formed what I am calling the Eastern Bishops which were in conflict about this rivalry of the Passover on the 14^th versus Passover on the first day of the week. The Eastern Bishops were comprised of Jews and Gentiles, so this was a lot of Paul’s work; he evangelized the area so there were a number of Gentiles in the mix of it all.

The Eastern Bishops were thought of though as spiritual outcasts. They were certainly a minority by comparison to the Western group, the Western Bishops. They were labeled as Jews even though they weren’t, or some of them weren’t. They were labeled as Jews because the kept the Sabbath, Holy Days and the 14^th Passover as we will see.

In the book of Jude we get an early testimony that this was starting to develop. It appears that Jude would have been written after the destruction of the Temple, sometime between 70 and 90 CE. Let’s read this short account in Jude because I think it’s insightful of what was developing:

Jude, the servant of Yahushua Messiah, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by YHWH the Father, and preserved in Yahushua Messiah, and called: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Beloved, when I gave all diligence ^{G4710=speed, earnestness} to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful ^{G318=implied distress} for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend ^{G1864=struggle for, compete for a prize} for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
(Jud 1:1-3 KJV) c. 70-90 CE

We’ve all probably read this multiple times and thought Jude is admonishing people to stick with the original recipe. When you look under the cover, you see earnestness or an emergency that seems to be given through the understanding of the Greek. The first part of it is “beloved when I gave all diligence”, so the word “diligence” in Greek means speed and earnestness, there is an urgency that he is trying to convey here.

“To write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful”, the word “needful” has an implied distress about it so there probably was an emergency developing. “for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith”, this word “contend” means to compete for a prize or struggle. It seems like Jude is apparently writing after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 CE of what was unfolding that wolves were coming in. People were coming in and distorting the original recipe, the original truth that Yahushua brought forth and died for.

With that, we are going to see the calendar debate develop.

Passover Calendar Debate Develops

• Easter alternative introduced to early church ca. 120 CE
  – Western Apostolic tradition – no scripture
• The passion or the resurrection?
• Quartodeciman controversy develops
  – Believers in Messiah from Asia Minor versus Greek/Roman Bishops from Rome
  – 14^th of Nisan Versus Easter Sunday
  – Ant Semitic prejudice
  – Allegorical reasoning
  – No scriptural basis

They didn’t call it Easter at this point, they still called it Pasha or Passover, but I will use the word Easter so that we make sure we keep the distinction. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a number of great articles about this.

• ^{Catholic Encyclopedia Summary} A letter of St. Irenaeus was among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus (c. 120 CE). Further, Irenaeus states that St Polycarp ^{69-155 CE}, who like the other Asiatics, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he claimed to have derived from St. John the Apostle, came to Rome c. 150 CE about this very question, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodeciman observance. Nevertheless he was not debarred from communion with the Roman Church.

This starts to develop into a question of what the people are honoring, the passion or the resurrection.

St. Irenaeus, while condemning the Quartodeciman practice, nevertheless reproaches Pope Victor (c. 189 CE) ^{a different account} with having excommunicated the Asiatics too precipitately and with not having followed the moderation of his predecessors….

There are two accounts being talked about here, one is Polycarp and Pope Sixtus and the other is Pope Victor. The first account we are going to see that Polycarp and Anicetus agreed to disagree is what it boils down to. It wasn’t but forty years later when Pope Victor had the same question that there was a much different response and the just agreed to disagree. We will examine that.

The Quartodeciman Controversy comes out of this and what it boils down to. Hopefully what you are seeing that believers in Messiah from the Asia Minor provinces are in conflict with the Greek/Roman Bishops from Rome. This is all about the fourteenth of Nisan or Abib versus Easter Sunday. Of course, keep in mind the background, all of the anti-Semitic prejudice that has been fomenting over the last number of years dating back to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Also keep in mind the allegorical reasoning that the Western Bishops held to and how they had really no scriptural basis in any of the writing here for what they were doing. We will see evidence of that as we go forward.

Going on in the Catholic Encyclopedia, it says:

The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday or whether Christians should observe the Holy Day of the Jews, the fourteenth of Nisan, which might occur on any day of the week. Those who kept Easter ^{14th Passover} with the Jews were called Quartodecimans or terountes (observants).

(New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Easter controversy, Vol. V. article ‘Easter’, p. 228)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05228a.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia weighs in on this and I think this is a real accurate representation of what other sources provide.

• The passion or the resurrection?
  – Passover or Easter
  – What did Paul Say?

Paul isn’t writing about events, he’s writing about what will happen. What did Paul tell the Corinthians?

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1Co 5:7-8 KJV)

• Paul encouraged gentile Corinthians to keep Passover

Paul wasn’t encouraging them to keep Easter Sunday in any way, shape, or form.

Passover Calendar Debate Develops
Contention in the Early Church

• Meeting between Polycarp (Smyrna bishop) and Anicetus, (Rome bishop) in ca. 155 CE
• The passion or the resurrection?
  – Passover or Easter
  – What did John say?

We will see this meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus that was previously mentioned in more detail in this particular account written from the fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus. Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna who would have been the Eastern leg of this, versus Anicetus who was the Roman bishop, the western leg of this. This took place in about 155 CE. Polycarp of course is well known to be a disciple of John.

• ^{Polycarp and Anicetus} And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points… For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance (in his own way), inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep (the observance in his way), for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect.

  (Fragments From The Lost Writings of Irenaeus. Translated by Roberts and Donaldson. Excerpts Volume 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers; American Edition copyright ©1885 and © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.)

It seems to me what this is saying is Anicetus had a mass; he did the Eucharist type of mass for Polycarp as result of this. This is pretty amazing but the question remains, Passover or Easter was the issue. Again, if we look into John in 1 John, what does he say about what is coming here and how should we behave? John says:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Yahshua Messiah his Son cleanseth us from all sin ^{not His resurrection}. (1Jn 1:7 KJV)

The blood cleanses us from all sin, not the resurrection day, it’s the blood. This is about Passover, not about the resurrection day.

Passover Calendar Debate Develops
Contention in the Early Church

• Servilius Paulus – Likely Sergius Paulus 168 CE
• Melito of Sardis (asia Minor) ca. 180 CE
  – Favored the 14^th Passover
  – New Moon calendar inconsistency
  – Not using Hillel calculated calendar
  – Proper season – after spring equinox insinuated
• The passion or the resurrection?
  – What did John say?

Another account about a guy named Melito has a fragment that gives us another component of the controversy that is coming out, so it’s not just about the question of it being the 14^th or the first day of the week on Sunday. There is going to be an issue about calendar come up here that we are going to see and I want you to be aware of that also.

This guy Servilius Paulus was likely around 168 CE timing and if you go look for Servilius Paulus, you probably won’t find him. I couldn’t, but I did find Sergius Paulus so I suspect that is his real name. In any case, this is an account about Melito of Sardis, again, one of the Eastern advocates of Passover on the 14^th and it’s going to talk about the new moon calendar problem that is coming up here.

• ^{Melito and Laodicea controversy} When Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time that Sargaris suffered martyrdom, there arose a great controversy at Laodicea concerning the time of the celebration of the Passover, which on that occasion had happened to fall at the proper season.

  (Melito – Translation by Roberts and Donaldson, On the Passover, copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby)
  Http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html

What you find when you look into the history of all of this there is a problem that the Jews have now, and that was that there is no more Sanhedrin. When Titus took the Temple out and abandoned all things Jewish, the Sanhedrin was disbanded, they couldn’t meet anymore.

Part of the Sanhedrin was a calendar court of about ten people that met each month and examined witnesses when they saw the new moon. They would bring people into Jerusalem and then they would declare whether the month was a new moon day one or not. That was all done away with, so what happened is that people were in different parts of the Roman Empire were watching their own new moon and coming up with when the Holy Days are.

It is just like today, some groups keep it a month early, some groups keeping it a month late. There was no consistency among the Jewish community so the calendar that had been a foundational item for the Jews and having a calendar court to determine when the new moon was, not having that caused people to do their own thing as has happened up to this day. The determination made the Holy Days wander so they are talking about this account here that the celebration of Passover had happened to fall on the proper season.

What had gotten to be put in place at this point in time is this idea that we need to pay attention to the spring equinox. The spring equinox was part of the equation for some and not for others, just as it is today. Of course the rabbinic view of this is about the tequphah, I won’t go into much detail about it other than to say they had these same problems in those days as we are seeing today. The day for Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread were kept a month early by some people. That is what is being talked about, falling at the proper season; it was kept after the spring equinox which people started to view as important in the decision.

The calendar problem is all in the mix here and this is happening in Laodicea by the way, but what did John say? One of the things he talked about was Laodicea in Revelation 3.

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Elohim; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
(Rev 3:14-16 KJV)

This was said in Revelation 3, somewhere around 95 CE. Here we are at ninety years or so later and Laodicea is still there and having problems with determining the proper season of the Passover. That’s in the mix so remember that, remember that the calendar is a problem and we will see that addressed when we get to the council of Nicaea in 325.

Passover Calendar Debate Develops
Contention in the Early Church

• Apollinaris ^{AKA Claudius} of Hierapolis (Turkey) ca. 175 CE – favored the 14^th
  – Famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day
  – Apollinaris wrote pro 14^th Passover and against Fifteeners
  – Remaining fragment from Apollinaris

Hierapolis is in the Eastern leg in Turkey, and this account is around 175 CE and he favored the 14^th Passover. Apollinaris was famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day so he probably wasn’t a very popular guy because there was a lot of heresy going on.

Apollinaris wrote about the 14^th Passover and against the Fifteeners by the way, which we will see in this account. That is another part of the mix, I don’t get that the Fifteeners problem was nearly a big part of the problem of what was going on with the Greeks and Romans. It wasn’t nearly as much a part of the problem as it is today so we have much broader group of people debating whether the Passover is the 14^th or the 15^th today and that has developed out of all of this.

This is a remaining fragment of Apollinaris writing and it says:

There are, then, some who though ignorance raise disputes about these things (though their conduct is pardonable: for ignorance is no subject for blame, it rather needs further instruction), and say that on the fourteenth day the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples and that on the great day of the feast of unleavened bread ^Fifteener He Himself suffered: and they quote Matthew as speaking in accordance with their view. Wherefore their opinion is contrary to the law and the Gospels seem to be at variance with them….

In other words, this is a variation on the fifteenth theme of Yahushua’s passion now occurring on the First Day of Unleavened Bread. What he is talking about here is what Matthew said that made these people think this. This is what Matthew says, and they would have had access to these kinds of writings by this point in time.

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Yahushua, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?
(Mat 26:17 KJV)

When you read this on the surface you say that it is the First Day of Unleavened Bread is when they had the Passover, therefore, that must be the day that Yahushua had the Passover and that is when he was crucified. That is where this thinking, this heresy comes from and what Apollinaris is writing about. Notice that he is writing against it, not for it. These people have taken a cursory view of the First Day of Unleavened Bread and applying that to Yahushua’s crucifixion. Part of the problem is when you look at the Greek, the word “day” and “feast of”, has been added in the text as a way to help you understand it. In reality what the text says is:

Now the first of the unleavened bread the disciples came to Yahushua.

We have looked at this verse ourselves in the past month or so and it is several presentations worth. This is talking about the season of the year. The Days of Unleavened Bread included the Passover; we will get to an account here shortly in Mark’s account.

More from Apollinaris on this account:

…The fourteenth day, the true Passover of our Lord: the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb, who was bound, who bound the strong, and who was judged, though Judge of living and dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified, who was lifted up on the horns of the unicorn, and who was pierced in His holy side, who poured forth from His side the two purifying elements, water and blood, word and spirit, and who was buried on the day of the Passover, the stone being placed upon the tomb.

(Apollinaris – From the Book Concerning Passover, Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Excerpted from Volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, copyright © 1885, Copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby)

Clearly Apollinaris knows the proper timing of the account and that is what he is writing about. I do want to highlight his reference to “water and blood” and “word and spirit”, keep in mind this is 175 CE. The apostle John had already written his account in 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John. It is likely that this reference to water and blood, word and spirit came from John’s writing. I want to highlight that because it shows something else that was going on during this period of time. There wasn’t just one controversy, there were multiple.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Yahushua Messiah; not by water only, but by water and blood ^{he mentions this twice}. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. (1Jn 5:6-7 KJV)

What Apollinaris was likely referring to is this writing in John at this point in time. Notice what follows this: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. What you find when you go look at this, by the way, is that this last verse, verse 7 “the three that bear witness and these three are one” is a corrupted scripture. It was added, it is known by most all authorities, and there is very little debate about this, that this section of John in verse 7 that we are reading was added in the sixteenth century, somewhere around 1550. You don’t find it in any of the early manuscripts so this recipe for the trinity is getting imposed in the scripture on top of all of these other ideas that people are coming up with. Keep in mind, the allegorical thinking of the Greeks is what is in play here and the original believers are being pushed out little by little. They are being oppressed and negated from the true belief that Yahushua ultimately, originally provided.

Passover Calendar Debate Develops
Contention in the Early Church

• Pope Victor I Bishop of Rome 189-199 CE
  – Intolerant of Quartodecimans
  – Severed relation with Asia Minor
• Eusebius of Caesarea – AKA Eusebius Pamphili
  – ca. 260 – 340 CE
  – Biblical polemicist, historian, scholar
• The passion or the resurrection?
  – Passover or Easter
  – What did Paul Say
  – Western Apostolic custom and mystery
  —By ecclesiastical decree
  — No scripture

This account of Pope Victor that we originally read in the Catholic Encyclopedia has some additional details out of Eusebius’ writing. This guy Pope Victor was a bishop of Rome. He is a Western guy and this takes place around 190 CE. Victor was not only intolerant, he was highly intolerant of the Quartodecimans as you will see here and he severed the relationships with Asia Minor and of course this is being written by Eusebius of Caesarea also known as Eusebius Pamphili.

A little about Eusebius because we are using some of his writings, he was a Biblical polemicist, a historian and a scholar. He wrote a lot, a mountain of material, and he is thought of as one of the early apostolic church fathers. He was a Greek guy but his writings give us good insight in some of the history. This one is about Pope Victor, and what Pope Victor was going to do.

^{Pope Victor} A question of no small importance that at that time (the time of Pope Victor c. 190 CE. The dioceses of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving pasch, contending that the fast ^{Rom 14} ought to end on that day, whatever day of the week it might happen to be. However it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world ^west to end it at this point, as they observed the practice, which from Apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the Resurrection of our Savior. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the Resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but Sunday and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only. (Eusebius – Church History V 23)

This is remarkable commentary. Victor said that the custom of the churches in the rest of the world, so the custom of the churches and apostolic tradition is going take precedent here, but note there is an additional component of the controversy, now it is about a fast. We just learned there was a calendar controversy, now there is also something being thrown into the mix about a fast. So what this fasting was all about is that the people in the East were fasting up until the 14^th and keeping the Passover. The people in the West, the majority were keeping the fast up through the first day of the week on Sunday. That is what Victor is writing about here. I have noted in the margin that Romans 14 talks a little bit about this.

Romans 14 certainly isn’t about this time but it is about fasting, and talking about fasting and being a vegetarian. People who read Romans 14 that don’t read very far into what it’s really talking about and they think Romans 14 is talking about clean and unclean food number one, and then keeping the Sabbath on the other hand. Neither of those would be true. Romans 14 is about people that are fasting and it doesn’t matter what day of the week. Pope Victor didn’t read that very closely but in any case, this is his account.

What Paul said might influence what we think about this, again, Paul is talking about the redemption of Yahushua.

In whom we have redemption through his blood ^{added: not his resurrection}, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Eph 1:7 KJV)

I added ‘not his resurrection’ because we have redemption through his blood. What you see here is that the Western Apostolic custom is taking precedence and is prevailing. It’s interesting that Victor refers to this as a decree “that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but Sunday”, “The mystery of the resurrection of the Lord”. I got to thinking about where he got that and maybe that is something in the scriptures that he saw. Well, I went to look to see about where the word “mystery” is used, and it’s used 15 places or so. The mystery of the kingdom is mentioned, the mystery of his will, the mystery of Messiah, the mystery of the gospel, the mystery of iniquity, the mystery of Babylon, and the mystery of the woman are some of the references. There is no reference to the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord.

It is amazing to see these Greek experts making up these rules because they despised everything that which was “Jewish”, of course they said that this was the law that the Jews kept but they sort of forgot that it’s the law of YHWH. These are the commandments of YHWH that were given to the Israelites; probably some of these people were Israelites and didn’t know it. The Jews certainly aren’t the ones that determine the law; YHWH determines the law, not the Jews.

Passover Calendar Debate Develops
Contention in the Early Church

• Heated controversy – Polycrates (Ephesus) and Victor (Rome) c 195 CE
  – Passover or Easter
  – What did YHWH say?
• The Passover or the resurrection?
  – Passover or Easter
  – What did the gospel of Mark say?

Even a little later here there was a heated controversy by Polycrates who came after Polycarp and it has to do with Polycrates of Ephesus and Victor at Rome and it’s the same account. We see this from Eusebius who is quoting Polycrates letter to the Victor of Rome. So after the Victor of Rome in the previous account made his position, Polycrates is writing:

^{Imagine Victor or Rome receiving this:} We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests a Ephesus; and moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate ^{Exo 28:36= gold plate for mitre – Holiness to YHWH}. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas , bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna…

Polycrates is really putting it to Victor about what the right recipe for all of this. We will continue the account but I want to make a couple of comments about what YHWH said about this, what are YHWH’s commands?

These are the feasts of YHWH, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their seasons. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is YHWH’s passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto YHWH: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread. (Lev 23:4-6 KJV)

There is no prescription here for summarizing all of this and making it the day of the resurrection on the first day of the week. There is absolutely no foundation for any of this that is going on from the Greek and Roman western group. Also of interest, just as a side note, Eusebius is mentioning that John wore the sacerdotal plate. I got to wondering about that and went to look a little deeper into that; this must be an allegorical expression of John’s position. John certainly wasn’t a priest, he was known as a believer in Yahushua and an apostle but did he wear a sacerdotal plate? Probably not, it is probably figuratively what is being talked about. Interestingly enough, if you look at Exodus 28:36 you are going to see that this plate that is probably called the sacerdotal plate is a small gold plate for the mitre that the priests wore. On it is inscribed Holiness to YHWH. This is probably a reference of John; I just got curious about what he was meaning.

If you look at this gold plate that is mentioned, you are going to see that it’s a seat fee. That was a surprise to me because I know of tzitzit’s as the fringes on clothes and the rope that is woven that represents YHWH’s law that so many in Hebrew Roots are attached to today. Here is another example of a tzitzit.

Going on here with this account, keep in mind this is Polycrates and Victor of Rome.

…Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcope from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven ^{on the fourteenth}. I therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, an not affrighted by terrifying words…

(^{Mike adds} That you are trying to put on me Victor). Pretty amazing letter that he wrote to Victor, and again, this is about keeping the Passover or Easter. It’s about passion on Passover or the resurrection on Easter.

Mark has something useful to add to this, I mentioned that I was going to read Mark a bit ago, but in the 14^th chapter of Mark, the first verse says:

After two days was the feast of the passover,

“The feast of” is added, so Mark says, after two days was the Passover and of Unleavened Bread. The account of Mark makes the distinction that there are two separate pieces.

and of unleavened bread…And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? (Mar 14:1, 12 KJV)

In these two verses we get good clarity that he is talking about two parts of the Passover season, the Days of Unleavened Bread and the Passover itself, then he goes on to mention using the term First Day of Unleavened Bread meaning the Passover day. He is talking about the first of the eight day period.

• Heated controversy – Polycrates (Ephesus) and Victor (Rome) c. 195 CE

This is the recipe that all of the early disciples kept, I think that is part of the message here also that this goes on for several hundred years that the early disciples were keeping these Holy Days and keeping the Passover, particularly the Passover on the 14^th, they were being squeezed into a smaller group, pretty much like it is today. Mainstream Christianity is the majority group by far that abides by these decisions that were being made way back in the first few centuries. This ends up being a heated controversy and the last part of this is from Polycrates. That is why there are only a few of us here today.

For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man’…I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus….

That is what Polycrates wrote, and Eusebius continues with commentary: (Victor’s response)

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox ^{not conforming with accepted or orthodox standards or beliefs}; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.

(Eusebius, The History of the Church, Book V Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7, translated by Cushman McGiffert, Published Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 114)

This was that heavy hand that was mentioned earlier in the presentation that Victor had about the 14^th decision. You can see how this is going, it is getting worse.

• The passion or the resurrection?
  – Passover or Easter
  – What did Paul say?

What does Paul remind us of when we look into his writing? What did he tell the Corinthians to do?

For I have received of the Master that which also I delivered unto you, That the Master Yahushua the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1Co 11:23-25 KJV)

The recipe here for Passover and unleavened bread is that “we do it in remembrance of me”. Paul also said to the Corinthians:

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Master’s death ^{not his resurrection, this is talking about the time you do it, you are showing his death} till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Master, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Master. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. (1Co 11:26-28 KJV)

Quartodeciman Controversy Develops
Means 14^th

• Dispute develops
  – Original believers of Asia Minor (east)
  Passover celebrated on the fourteenth of Nisan versus:
  – Roman church (west)
  ^{Advocated that} Sunday is the resurrection festival without regard to Jewish chronology
  * 3 Jewish Roman wars – prejudice developed against anything Jewish
  * Titus Vespasian 66-73 CE. Keto’s war 115-117 CE. (Lucius Quietus), Hadrian 132-136 CE
  This included the Vespasian’s leveling the Temple in 70 CE and the acts at Masada,
  Keto’s war and Hadrian’s war with Bar Kokhba group.
• Asia Minor (east) disciples held to apostles John and Philip
  – 14^th of Nisan was Yahushua’s last paschal supper
  without regard for a fixed day of the week.
  – Voluntary fast ended on the 14^{th not on the first day of the week}
• Roman church (west) honored death of Messiah on Friday and Resurrection on Sunday
  – Emphasis on Messiah’s death versus
  – Emphasis on Messiah’s resurrection
  – Eucharist – AKA Holy Communion or Yahushua’s Last Supper ^Passover
  * Ceremony commemorating Last Supper
  * Bread and wine are consecrated and consumed

The resurrection on Sunday was after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, ultimately after Passover. That got added. The voluntary fast for this group ended on Sunday. Obviously there is a lack of uniformity that developed into a great scandal. The emphasis was going to be either on Messiah’s death or the Messiah’s resurrection. That is what this all boils down to.

By the way, out of this comes the Eucharist, also known as Holy Communion or Yahushua’s Last Supper. The Eucharist is the body and the blood of Yahushua being transformed, I think they call it transubstantiation, or being reformed into and taken as a host and taken into the believer that takes this communion. The ceremony of communion that we see today really boils down to commemorating the Last Supper, and the bread and wine are consecrated and consumed in the process. This all came to a conclusion and a head at the Council of Nicaea.

Council of Nicaea – 325 CE
AKA – 1^st Ecumenical Council

• 300+ Bishops assemble in Iznik (Nicaea) Turkey – 2.4 months
  – No Asia Minor Bishops
  – Convened by Roman Emperor Constantine I – Led by Bishop Hosius of Cordoba ^Spain
• Agenda
  1. Determine nature of Yahushua and His relationship to the Father
  * Arius versus Athanasius ^{assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexander} doctrine ^{(both from Alexandria Egypt)}
  * Terminology – homoousion (Greek) = hypostasis or substance
  2. Establish uniform date for Easter – settle fasting issue
  3. Resolution of Meletian Schism (bread away sect in Lycopolis Egypt – Bishop Meliticus)
  4. Authorization of 20 church laws (canons for Priestly duties and administration)
  5. Legends
• Major accomplishments – by Imperial Decree
  – Construct Nicaean Creed
  – Easter date proclamation independent of new moon calendar – no scriptural authority
  – Domestic household Passover replaced by Easter – no scriptural authority
• Accepted by – Eastern Assyrian Church, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, most Protestants
  – Next council meeting – First Council of Constantinople (381 CE)

The Council of Nicaea is also known as the Ecumenical Council; Constantine wanted unity. Ecumenical means: To try to have unity even though there is a difference or distinction in a person’s belief system.

This First Ecumenical Council consisted of over 300 Bishops and they assembled in a place called Iznik Turkey, also known as Nicaea. They were there for almost two and a half months going through the agenda items, listening to presentations by different advocates of different positons. I find that it appears there is now evidence that there weren’t any Asia Minor Bishops at this particular enclave. Those in the minority weren’t even invited as far as I can see, but I don’t think anyone was there making their case.

This was convened by Emperor Constantine I and was led by a guy named Hosius of Cordoba who was a Bishop in Spain. The agenda is well known, you can find a lot of evidence that this agenda was what they talked about. The first item they went into was to determine the nature of Yahushua and his relationship to the Father. These scholars and Bishops wanted to know the substance of the Divinity and the Greek word that you run into is homoousios or homoousion and that means what is the nature of something. In this case the homoousion of the Divinity, or the homoousion of YHWH’s divinity.

There were two main guys that were there and a large part of the debate centered on a guy named Arias versus another guy named Athanasius. Athanasius was a young guy at this point; he was only twenty five or twenty six years old and was actually an assistant to the Bishop of Alexandria. He became a major player during the next fifty or so years of his life.

Arius was the guy that brought the homoousion nature to be that Yahushua was a created being. At some point, YHWH created Yahushua to be his son so Yahushua had a beginning is what Arius would advocate. Athanasius didn’t agree with that, and on top of it, Athanasius wanted to assign the nature, the homoousion nature of the Divinity to include the Holy Spirit. We start to see the inclusion of what became known as the trinity through Athanasius and his doctrine.

In English we would say the hypostasis of something. What is the hypostasis of a substance or an object? That simply is what they were doing here, trying to figure out what the nature of YHWH’s Divinity really was, YHWH and Yahushua and the Spirit. The controversy that they first wanted to settle was that, and they did. It turns out that Arius ended up being a minority opinion and was exiled. He wasn’t executed but he was exiled and Athanasius got his way. If you go into the history of this it really didn’t last. Both of these guys Arius and Athanasius came back with their individual positions and depending on the Emperor of Rome, they had favor one way or another. They both had gone into exile, Athanasius several times during the course of his life, and Arius too.

This was a controversy going on from 300 CE over the next fifty to seventy five years of what the nature or hypostasis or homoousion nature of YHWH was. They settled that, they settled in the Athanasius point at this time.

They also wanted to establish the uniform date for Easter, and settle the fasting issue. They did that as well and I will show you the output of that. The third item was that they had a rebel spiritual group called the Meletian. There was a split in them; they were a breakaway sect in Lycopolis Egypt. Their leader, Meliticus was thought of as a rebel and wanted to deal with it and they had a resolution for that as well as a fourth agenda item of twenty church laws that they wanted to bring into unity which they called cannons for priestly duties and administrations and they did that.

This is a pretty interesting agenda and that is why it took them two and a half months. There are legends that are associated with this and I chuckle when I find these sorts of things and then go look to see if they are true or not. It’s much like so much of the conspiracy theories that you hear today, maybe it is chem trails, or whatever it is, and there are lots of these legends and conspiracy theories of this particular council.

• Constantine decided which books were scripture and which ones were burned
• The council separated divinely inspired writings from those of questionable origin
• Constantine decided the names God and Jesus ^{some say JeZeus} from a list of 50 names

I have heard this one myself, I have heard several of these but this one in particular. I have heard several people say that Constantine decided that the name Jesus came and Constantine listed Jesus because it was from JeZeus which means “hail Zeus” and Zeus was one of the gods in the Roman society. That is where JeZeus comes from if somebody is an advocate of that.

Interestingly enough, I have looked at all of these, there is a number more, maybe twice this many of these kinds of legends and theories. What you find is person A states it in a blog and they quote person B and person B quotes person C and D, then you find that they quoted person A.

What you have is circular doctrine and people like to make their prejudice based on that. ‘It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so’. Some people know some of these things, absolutely for sure, unfortunately it just ain’t so.

• Constantine had 300 versions of the Bible burnt
• The raising of Lazarus was removed from Mark on the instructions of the Council
• The Roman Catholic Church created the canon of Christian scripture at the Council of Nicaea

Some pretty uninformed fake news that you read about today and read in people’s opinions about what happened here. I can’t find any evidence that any of these items have any traction at all. Maybe they do, I’m just remiss here, but I sure can’t find any traction.

• Major accomplishments – by Imperial Decree
  – Construct Nicaean Creed
  – Easter date proclamation independent of new moon calendar – no scriptural authority
  – Domestic household Passover replaced by Easter – no scriptural authority
• Accepted by – Eastern Assyrian Church, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, most Protestants
  – Next council meeting – First Council of Constantinople (381 CE)

The output of this formed the foundation for a couple of creeds that have developed which we will talk about.

The next council meeting that they had with this ecumenical group was the Council of Constantinople in 381, there was an interim council that Constantine held in Tyre ten years or so later before he died, but this next major council was in Constantinople in 381 in the historical record.

So the output that we want to look at is the Nicaean Creed that came out of this. There are two sides to this chart. Constantine was dead before the First Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, and a guy named Theodosius led it. We will put our attention on the First Council of Nicaea and what came out of it.

The creed that came out are all “we believe” statements.

First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) Emperor Constantine	First Council of Constantinople (381 CE) Emperor Theodosius I
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.	We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible
And in one Lord Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God. Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father	And in one Lord Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds. Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father
By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;	by whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;	Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;	He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day rose again, according to the scriptures and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right had of the Father;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.	From thence he shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead
	Whose kingdoms have no end
And the Holy Ghost	And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not,’ and ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence’, or ‘The Son of God is created’ or ‘changeable’ or ‘alterable’ – they are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church	In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

The last we believe statement was meant against Arius because of Arius’s argument that Yahushua was a created being. I don’t believe that the Holy Catholic reference was in the original document because the Catholic name didn’t come about until a later point in time. It was the Universal Church very early, so probably the Holy Catholic part of this output was probably added sometime along the line.

In contrast, some seventy years later, the second creed came out. It is largely similar to the first one but they started modifying it and the modifications I want to put our attention on are the last couple ones. Originally, all the items that you see in the list, you would probably have to say generally we would probably agree with most of that. I certainly believe that there is a Holy Spirit that is for sure, but in the next version of this creed look what happens. ‘And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets’. The trinity doctrine really starts to rise up in this version of the creed.

The last item is that ‘we believe in the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come’.

There is a third version of this that is called the Athanasian Creed and it is even longer. It may be twice as long as either of these. The Athanasian Creed is the one that it commonly read in Protestant churches today so people go to their Sunday church service in the Protestant circle and may read the Athanasian Creed. This is the genesis of all of this that dates back to the first Council of Nicaea in 325.

First Ecumenical Council
Constantine Letter to Bishops
Emperor Letter to Those Not Present

For those who did not attend the meeting a memo was sent by Constantine and penned by Eusebius.

• When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord…It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded…We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Savior has shown us another way…we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this…They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year….

– Changed from the Passion to the Resurrection
– No scriptural supportc
– Hope of immortality only by Yahushua’s death

• Eusebius of Caesarea – AKA Eusebius Pamphili
• The life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine

As I have been going through this presentation, there are some links of documents that are available, this is the document from Eusebius that this writing was from if you care to see it.

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu?03d/o265-0339._Eusebius_Caesariensis._Vita_Constantini_[Schaff]._EN.pdf

Here is the dig about the Jews, “without their direction we could not keep this feast”, and it is about the calendar which they couldn’t provide any longer. They say that the Jews keep two Passovers in one year and it is because of how the calendar was kept. In fact this can happen even legitimately if you are keeping the new moon calendar. One year the festival can be late, and the next early, and fundamentally, it would occur in the same calendar year. Nobody liked that either, at least on the Roman side of this.

Things were changed; the ordinance of Passover was changed from the passion to the resurrection. Notice that there isn’t any scriptural support in this, but the hope of immortality is only by Yahushua’s death. There are a number of scriptures that show us that, here is what it says in Hebrews.

• But we see Yahshua, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of YHWH should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their ^{the believers} salvation perfect through sufferings. (Heb 2:9-10 KJV)
• Foundation of New Covenant Passover memorial
• For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mat 26:28 KJV)

It isn’t Yahushua’s resurrection, it is blood. This is a link for a document you can copy from Eusebius that this writing was from.

Click to access 0265-0339._Eusebius_Caesariensis._Vita_Constantini_[Schaff]._EN.pdf

Eusebius goes on to say:

• …For to celebrate the passover twice in one years is totally inadmissible…Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion….For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way…The custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable…as it followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia…To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command…We can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you my beloved brethren.
  (Eusebius . Vita Const,.Lib.iii.,18-20)

– Changed by Imperial Decree
– No scriptural support
– Specific Easter date came later

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/const1-easter.asp
Courtesy Fordham University

Notice that it says it’s “the unanimous judgment of all”, and Imperial Decree of course. This is another good reference source.

Quartodeciman Controversy 8^th Century
14^th Passover vs. Easter

One last piece of history, a few hundred years later

• Bede the Venerable ^{respect and honor}
  – 673 – 735

This guy was respected

• English Benedictine monk
  – Three vows: stability, fidelity to the monastic way of life, and obedience
• Author, teacher, scholar
• The Venerable Bede’s Computus
  – Calculation that determines calendar date of Easter
  – Dating forward from birth of Messiah (Anno Domini – in the year of our Lord)
  – Dionysius Exiguus
  6^th century Scythian Monk
  – Carried forward to this very day
  – The saga continues

What he wrote about shows us that this question was still on the minds of people several hundred years later dating to 700 or so CE.

• Dialogue from 8^th century Catholic Abbot Wilfrid who was trying to justify why it was acceptable not to follow the Apostle John’s practices regarding Passover and change the 14^th to an Easter Sunday, Even though they had done it 300 or so years earlier, he is talking about it again.
• Far be it from me to charge John with foolishness” he literally observed the decrees of the Mosaic law when the Church was still Jewish in many respects, at a time when the apostles were unable to bring a sudden end to that law which God ordained… So John, in accordance with the custom of the law, began the celebration of Easter Day in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, regardless of whether it fell on the sabbath or any other day.
  (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People – Bede’s letter to Egbert by Judith McClure and Roger Collins, The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Oxford University Press, 1999.pg 156)

“When the apostles were unable to bring a sudden end to that law which God ordained”, isn’t that an amazing statement? Why would they want to? Somebody writes this though. Of course they are using the term “Easter Day” as the 14^th, they have long since, by the 8^th century replaced the word “Passover”, Passover means Easter no matter what the usage is so you just have to get used to that idea. This question is still there. What is interesting about Bede’s commentary and his work is that he is also known for something called the Venerable Bede’s Computus.

Bede was a mathematician; he did a calculation that determines the calendar date of Easter. He used as its basis, the work that the guy the previous century put in place, his name was Dionysius Exiguus and Exiguus was the guy responsible for the calendar timing that we use called AD, so Anno Domini, Domini meaning in the year of our Lord. Exiguus put that system in place and he figured that Yahushua was born in 1 AD, and that the calendar was going to count forward from 1 AD and that is what got put in place.

The only problem is that some years after Exiguus put this in place, it was discovered that Yahushua actually wasn’t born in 1 AD, he was born in minus three or minus four using that calculation depending if you count a 0 year or not. Of course we refer to that as BCE but astronomically it would be minus three or minus four.

Exiguus’ calendar ends up being off by four or five years or so and so we have that problem today that we have to deal with. That is a little bit of history of how the calendar was developing here and ultimately became the Gregorian calendar; they were still in the Julian era of calendar keeping. The calendar problem just continues until today and the saga continues.

Passover Lamb versus Easter Bunny Symbols

We end up with a couple of mascots, if you are keeping Passover, which mascot comes to mind? If it is Passover, it’s the lamb and it turns out when you search on “lamb” you find that there is a hundred and seven matches as seen on the chart on the next page.

What about the animal mascot for Easter? What do you think of? Well, that is the bunny or the rabbit. How many of those do you think there are in the scriptures? Sorry, there is zero.

What you do find though is something about the hare. You have to maybe be a little creative to find something about rabbits and bunnies, but you find the hare mentioned in a couple of places.

And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (Lev 11:6 KJV)

Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. (Deu 14:7 KJV)

We don’t have much to read about the bunny or the hare unless it is in Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

We do have a few scriptures that are useful to look at when we talk about the lamb.

Lamb in the Scriptures

Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.
(Exo 12:21 KJV)

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
(Isa 53:7 KJV)

Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Yahushua as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of YHWH!
(Joh 1:35-36 KJV)

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Messiah, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
(1Pe 1:18-19 KJV)

For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and YHWH shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
(Rev 7:17 KJV)

Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our Elohim, and the power of his Messiah: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our Elohim day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
(Rev 12:10-11 KJV)

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.
(Rev 14:1 KJV)

And they sing the song of Moses the servant of YHWH, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, YHWH Elohim Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.
(Rev 15:3 KJV)

These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Master of Masters, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
(Rev 17:14 KJV)

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
(Rev 19:7 KJV)

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

And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of YHWH and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
(Rev 22:3 KJV)

I know what I do, this is what I do, what do you do?

One thing that you may need to do is some homework. Homework is always good on these kinds of topics to see what the truth of the matter is. Don’t believe me.

Do your own homework:

For we have not followed cunningly devised ^{G4679=Sofidzo=to render wise with deliberate deception, continue plausible error=sophist} fables, when we made know unto you the power and coming of our Master Yahushua Messiah, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2Pet 1:16 KJV)

These cunningly divided fables, aren’t they just everywhere? Cunningly devised fables come from the Greek work sofidzo, and it is from the Greek philosophy and practices of sophism. The definition of sophism is: an argument apparently correct in form but actually invalid. Isn’t that what we see here? Arguments seemingly correct in form, when you look at what these early apostolic Greek fathers did, but it is invalid, especially arguments that are used to deceive.

All scripture is given by inspiration of YHWH, and is profitable ^{G5624= helpful advantageous} for doctrine ^{G1319=instruction, learning} for reproof ^{G1650=admonish, conviction} for correction^{, G1343=equity of character or act, justification}. (2Ti 3:16 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy ^{G5385=Jewish sophistry} and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rediments of the world, and not after Messiah.
(Col 2:8 KJV)

And this I (Paul) pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve ^{G1381=test, discern, examine} things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Messiah. (Php 1:8-10 KJV)

Beware lest any man spoil you through sofidzo, don’t be deceived by it.

In the beginning at the epigraph, we talked about Mark Twain, and I said it was attributed to Mark Twain that said:

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. Guess what? The irony of it all is that Mark Twain did not say that.
Mark Twain
Anonymous

Many people have looked in to find the author of that statement, that axiom, that proverb, or that maxim, and Mark Twain said similar things, but he didn’t say this particular maxim. It is anonymous as best people that have studied it can tell.

What I found in researching whether Mark Twain said that or not, there is another guy though whose name is Josh Billings and he wrote in what is called krazy kat English. A couple of the axioms from Josh Billings will be interesting as our conclusion.

• I honestly believe it iz better tew know nothing that two know what ain’t so
• Wisdum don’t konsist in knowing more that iz new, but in knowing less that iz false.
  Josh Billings 1874
  In krazy kat English

By the way, I didn’t misspell, this is the way Josh Billings wrote in this krazy kat English.

www.answersoflife.com