I recently heard the following question asked on The Gray Havens Podcast:
There is actually a lot of Christian (and pre-Christian) teaching related to the East, particularly in relation to the practice of facing eastwards when praying…
If you visit a church which follows one of the older liturgies, you’ll notice that both the priest and the people face the same direction. This is known as “Ad Orientem” – ad (toward) and oriens (rising, sunrise, east). Historically, churches have been built (where possible) so that during the worship everyone faces eastwards. In the ancient Coptic Rite, a deacon even calls out in the middle of the service, “Look towards the East!”
The importance of the East dates back to the earliest years of the Church when Christians still met in private homes. In the Fourth Century, Saint Basil the Great wrote that “facing the east to pray was among the oldest unwritten laws of the Church”. You find it discussed in the Didascalia, as well as in the Early Church Fathers, such as St. Clement of Alexandria and St. Augustine. In the Second Century, the apologist Tertullian actually had to write a refutation against the Pagans who saw this and falsely accused Christians of worshiping the sun.
But why is the East important? In the Seventh Century, in An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book IV, Chapter 12), St. John of Damascus gave three reasons for Christians facing the east to pray:
1. By turning their faces towards the dawn, Christians are affirming that Christ is the “light of the world” (John 8:12), “the Sun of Righteousness” (Malachi 4:2) and “the Dayspring from on high” (Luke 1:78).
2. Your listener mentioned the Garden of Eden… Scripture tells us the garden was planted in the east (Genesis 2:8), but after the Fall, Adam and Eve are exiled and move to the west. Therefore, Christians face the east as a reminder of our lost home.
3. Referring to His Second Coming, Jesus said “For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be” (Matthew 24:27). Christians therefore look to the east as an expression of hope for the coming of Christ.
He got my name wrong, but he read out some of my answer in the following episode:
It’s very hard to tease out an argument from this video, but it seems to be:
1. Timothy was filled with the Spirit
2. Therefore God’s Word can’t be written down? Or maybe therefore Scripture has ceased to be Scripture?
Try as I might, I can’t see how (1) implies (2).
Self-Contradiction?
I don’t understand why he quotes the Bible to try and prove that the Bible is the Mark of the Beast. Surely that’s a self-contradiction?
The Defeater
Another verse in a letter to Timothy rather destroys their case (whatever it may be) by affirming the enduring value of the Old Testament:
“…from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures [Old Testament], which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”
2 Timothy 3:14
If the Old Testament can “make you wise for salvation”, how can it be the Mark of the Beast?
Okay, we have some answers! (Sort of)
I posted these questions in the comment section of the video and received the following reply:
All scripture WAS given by inspiration of God under the OLD Covenant, but that is done away in Christ. Now Jesus is the word of God and He speaks to us by the Holy Spirit, not the dead letter. I quote the bible because it holds authority with bible worshipers. To me it is only history and has no authority at all. I use it to show people that they are wrong to be controlled by it and that the saints under the new covenant also taught to be led by the Spirit, not the letter. I am trying to wake them up from their delusion that they think they are saved by claiming scriptures. We are to be led only by the Spirit of Christ, and not controlled at all by the bible. The bible is only history and it is good for information but not for faith. We are not to have any faith in the words in the bible, our faith must be in the Spirit. I do not claim words from the bible for my faith. Read the bible as history all you want, but do not have faith in it. Have faith in the LIVING JESUS CHRIST. You THINK you are saved by claiming scriptures but you will not come to the LIVING JESUS that you can actually be saved. Ask Jesus for the Holy Spirit. It is your only hope. The gospel is not written with INK, nor on tablets of stone, but on our hearts by the SPIRIT of the LIVING GOD.
@BIBLEIsMARKofBEAST
An ancient understanding?
I responded by saying that I not see how any of those passages affirm that the Bible is the Mark of the Beast. I asked him if he could think of any Christian from antiquity who affirmed his position.
The Bible isn’t good for faith?
It seemed strange to me for him to say that “The bible is only history and it is good for information but not for faith” since John 20:31 says the opposite, namely that “…these have been WRITTEN that you may BELIEVE that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have LIFE in His name”.
Past or Present?
However, the crucial problem with his argument is that when Paul writes to Timothy, he says “All Scripture IS God-breathed and IS useful for teaching etc.” He doesn’t speak in the past tense, even about the Old Testament. Where does he ever say that it is done away with? Peter doesn’t give this assessment in 2 Peter 3:16, the only negative thing he says about the Scriptures is that the ignorant twist them to their own destruction…
Unsurprisingly, in his reply, he didn’t give me the name of anyone from antiquity…
He was speaking in the past tense, there was no new testament bible when Paul told Timothy that, that word “IS” was added by a demonic priest. It is too bad that you do not KNOW JESUS CHRIST and only know ABOUT HIM. You are a bible convert and not a born again HOLY SPIRIT FILLED CHRISTIAN. You are just like the pharisees that Jesus told this too. Search the scriptures; for in them ye THINK ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will NOT COME TO ME THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE LIFE. On the other hand, I HAVE MET JESUS CHRIST AND HE SPOKE TO ME MANY TIMES DIRECTLY. So I know what I am telling you is THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH. But you cannot receive the truth, so you reject the LIVING WORD OF GOD and have faith in the dead letter which means you are dead.
@BIBLEIsMARKofBEAST
A “demonic priest” changed the tense of 2 Timothy 3:14?! That’s quite a claim! I asked him how he knew, whether he found a manuscript variation…
I don’t really know where to begin with this as there’s a lot of nonsense on both sides, as well as anachronisms and seeming attempts to undermine basic Christian doctrine. So, I’ll just go through all of the claims in turn…
Colonizer Jesus
Huh? What does that even mean?
White
Of course not, but he’s been portrayed in art throughout with many different ethnic features.
Christian
This is a nonsensical term to describe Jesus as He is not a Christian, but the Christ. The only people I’ve ever heard even ask the question whether Jesus was a Christian are Muslims.
Patriotic
Well, He began His mission with His own people and He wept over the capital city, so it would be strange to deny He expressed love towards His country… but He’s the creator of all and His mission was ultimately extended to all nations.
Justice through retribution
Not exactly sure what axe this is trying to grind. Maybe something in relation to theories of Atonment? (Isaiah 53:5). Or is it rejecting the idea of punishment for sin in general?
Died for your sins
Of course, this is essential Christian doctrine (Mark 10:45). Is this seriously being denied?
Sends sinners to Hell
One of the points of the Creed is that He will “judge the living and the dead” and this is amply confirmed by Scripture (Matthew 25:31-46). Is this also being rejected?!
Silent in the face of oppression
He was silent in the face of His own oppression in the Passion, but He certainly spoke out against some of the injustices of the day.
Condemns sinners
It depends what you mean. We’ve already seen that He will judge the living and the dead. During His earthly ministry He told people to “repent” and to “sin no more”. However, he didn’t tell those who were sinning that they were incapable of repenting.
Endorses Church and State
Once again, it depends what you mean, but He said that He was going to build His Church on Peter and imbued His Church with His Authority. Likewise, He said render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and told Pilate that He only had authority because it had been given to him by God.
A King
Of course (John 1:49)! Is this even in question?
Upholds Traditional Family Unit
Seems to be the case (Matthew 19:19).
Endorses Holy War
Depends what you mean by “Holy War”, particularly if it’s conceded that He gave His authority to His Church. He seems to have been okay at least with the possession of a couple of swords (Luke 22:38).
Historical Jesus
Wait, is it claiming that everything we’ve looked at so far isn’t historical? On what basis?!
Middle eastern brown skinned
Of course (Matthew 1).
Jewish
Of course (Matthew 1). Who’s been denying this?
Colonized by Rome
Yes, Rome had installed Herod as a puppet king.
Justice through restoration
Not entirely sure what this means, but there are definitely examples of those who extorted making amends (Luke 19:8). Or is this talking about the Atonement?
Killed by Church and State
“Church” here is anachronistic, but it’s true that He was killed by cooperation of the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Roman Governor. It’s worth noting, however, that Jesus says that “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.” (John 10:18)
Friend of sinners and outcasts
Absolutely (Matthew 9:11)
Liberates the Oppressed
Yup, plenty of healings and exorcisms (Luke 11:14)
Critiques religious people
He certainly critiqued some religious people (Matthew 23) and praised others (John 1:47, Matthew 11:11).
Subverts empire
I can’t think of an example of how Jesus did this directly. He paid His taxes and taught to give the government what it was due. However, He certainly sowed the seeds which would grow in His Church which would ultimately take over the Roman Empire.
Homeless Man and Child Refugee
I’m assuming this is a reference to Matthew 2:13 and Luke 9:58. However, Egypt was still part of the same Empire so “refugee” isn’t really a good description of His time in Egypt. It seems fair to describe Jesus as functionally homeless, as he was a travelling preacher and would have probably often slept out in the open.
Had half siblings
If the Early Church’s assessment of things is correct, these would have been either step siblings (children from Joseph’s earlier marriage) or cousins. However, what’s really troubling about this entry is it seems to be placed in opposition to “Upholds Traditional Family Unit”!
Non violent
Yup (Acts 8:32) although some people at the Temple might disagree (John 2:15).
