onnig

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35437.htm The link above is the "International Religious Freedom Report 2004" of Armenia. It is a very interesting read. This section was the most interesting part for me: Under Section III. Societal Attitudes: "There was no officially sponsored violence reported against minority religious groups during the period. Yezidi children on occasion reported hazing by teachers and classmates. Some observers reported increasingly unfavorable attitudes toward members of Jehovah's Witnesses among the general population, both because they are seen as "unpatriotic" for refusing military service and because of a widespread but unsubstantiated belief that they pay money to the desperately poor for conversions. The press reported a number of complaints lodged by citizens against members of Jehovah's Witnesses for alleged illegal proselytizing. Representatives of the Jehovah's Witnesses reported a few cases during the year in which the Procurator General's office sent official warnings to individual members regarding their proselytizing activities, and the group was at times the focus of verbal religious attacks and hostile preaching by some Armenian Apostolic Church clerics. In September 2003, teenagers in the town of Aparan physically assaulted four Jehovah's Witnesses. According to a Helsinki Committee report citing eye-witness accounts, a local priest of the Armenian Apostolic Church appeared to have encouraged the attack" Before anyone gets any idea that I am pro Jehovah's Witness, let me say from the start that the JW sect is really a cult, a false religious system with a false view of Christ and a false view of salvation. That said, let me continue on with the referenced paragraph. If the eye-witness account is true then the religious persecution of JWs is completely unchristian. Am I pointing out that only those from the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) are guilty of the persecution of JWs in Armenia, no, there may have been incidences of non AAC members persecuting other persons from other religions. So why did I point this out? I have been seeing the complete neglect of the commandments of Christ from the AAC leaders, not just members, in regard to religious practice and religious life. The fight at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is yet another example of the condition of the leadership of the AAC. This is just a symptom of the core issue which is a religion wrought with false doctrine and mixed with nationalistic furvor. What can this lead to? It can lead to greater persecutions and not just to JWs but to all who do not hold to the religious views of the AAC in Armenia since the AAC is the national church of Armenia. Under "Legal/Policy Framework" it states: "The constitution, as amended on December 8, 2005, provides for freedom of religion and "the exclusive mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as a national church in the spiritual life, development of the national culture and preservation of the national identity of the people of Armenia." The law stipulates some restrictions on the religious freedom of adherents of faiths other than the Armenian Apostolic Church. The constitution also provides for freedom of conscience, including the right either to believe or to adhere to atheism. The 1991 Law on Freedom of Conscience, amended in 1997 and again in 2001, establishes the separation of church and state but grants the Armenian Apostolic Church official status as the national church." And two paragraphs down it further states the conditions of registering a formal religion in Armenia: "The law requires all religious denominations and organizations to register in order to operate without restrictions. There were no reports of the Government refusing registration to religious groups that were qualified for registration under the law. The Department of Religious Affairs and National Minorities, which replaced the former Council on Religious Affairs (CRA), oversees religious affairs and coordinates activities with the cabinet's chief of staff. A high-ranking official from the former CRA serves as the prime minister's advisor on religious affairs. The Office of the State Registrar registers religious entities, and the Department of Religious Affairs and National Minorities performs a consultative role in the registration process. To qualify for registration, petitioning organizations must "be free from materialism and of a purely spiritual nature," and must subscribe to a doctrine based on "historically recognized holy scriptures." A religious organization must have at least 200 adult members. Religious groups are not required to register, but unregistered religious organizations may not publish newspapers or magazines, rent meeting places, broadcast programs on television or radio, or officially sponsor the visas of visitors. By the end of the period covered by this report, the Government had registered fifty-six religious organizations, some of which were individual congregations within the same denomination." That is why the Mormon Church cannot legally register within Armenia since it holds to the book of Mormon as their sacred scriptures and Muslims due to the Koran. Then we read: "On July 13, 2005, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) officials reported that police officers briefly detained, harassed, and threatened two foreign missionaries. The missionaries said that one of the officers, after warning them to leave the country, placed the barrel of his unloaded gun against one missionary's head and pulled the trigger. Church officials filed a police report, and the Government opened an investigation. According to the Department of Religious Affairs and National Minorities, Armenian Apostolic Church officials filed a counter-complaint against the Mormons within a week of the incident, alleging the missionaries were illegally proselytizing on church grounds. Police officials claimed the officers questioned the missionaries and asked them to stay away from the church but denied that the questioning constituted harassment. On October 4, 2005, a police inspector sent Mormon representatives a letter informing members that the national police intended to drop the investigation and leave the incident unresolved. Other religious groups reported isolated events involving police officials questioning missionaries and their acquaintances about their activities." Once again, to be clear on this matter, the Mormon Church is a false church with a false view of Christ and of salvation. With that out of the way, I have to ask; what is there to prevent a rewriting of the law to include groups who do not just hold to but who also reject certain "historically recognized holy scriptures" as the apocryphal books accepted by the AAC and the Roman Church? There is nothing to prevent it and if it does occur what will be the outcome? Every evangelical Armenian will suffer similar persecutions. Read what the definition of 'proselytizing' is in Armenia: "During the period covered by this report, most registered religious groups reported no serious legal impediments to their activities. However, the 1991 freedom of conscience law prohibits "proselytizing" (undefined in the law) and restricts unregistered groups from publishing, broadcasting, or inviting official visitors to the country. The prohibition on proselytizing applies to all groups, including the Armenian Apostolic Church; however, the term used for proselytizing implies that someone has been taken away from a "true" faith, and the prohibition effectively restricts only minority religious groups." Who defines the "true" faith? The AAC defines the "true" faith and although there is legally a separation of church and state there is, in practicality, no real separation. But God is sovereign and His truth will never be silenced.

Quest for Holy Oil In this article at Asbarez.com, the Armenian Apostolic Church priests are said to have their trek to Etchmiadzin every 7 years to collect the muron, "a sweet-scented holy oil stirred with what is said to be the tip of the lance driven through Jesus' side -- and carry them back to their respective dioceses." What struck me about this article was the statement of Zaven Arzoumanian, a theologian with the Western Diocese: "Armenians everywhere are bound by muron...It receives special powers from relics used in its preparation. The gifts of the Holy Spirit come from it in church ceremonies. That is why our people have always said, 'My child must be muronized.' " The article continues to say, "St. Gregory, according to tradition, blended the first sample of muron there as a unifying religious symbol of forgiveness and peace, and as a medicine for healing. Over the centuries, church leaders say, muron helped sustain a people decimated and dispersed by war, conquest and genocide." Well, how are we to accept this? Is this tradition a valid one? Are we obliged to practice it as is required by the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC)? If we don't, will "forgiveness and peace" not be applied to us. We, of course, must submit this to Scripture and see how we are to accept this tradition in light of God's Word. What does Scripture have to say to this tradition? Let's begin by examining the whole concept of relics. In this case, the lance which supposedly pierced the side of Christ; does it truly have such power the AAC claims it has? How can this be substantiated? Is there evidence of this lance being at the crucifixion site itself or any evidence that the lance could have been used at the approximate time? Is there a biblical example of relics being used to apply efficacious grace? Some biblical references are used as to the supposed power of relics: 2 Kin 13:21, “As they were burying a man, behold, they saw a marauding band; and they cast the man into the grave of Elisha. And when the man touched the bones of Elisha he revived and stood up on his feet.” Matt 9:20-22, “And a woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage for twelve years, came up behind Him and touched the fringe of His cloak; for she was saying to herself, "If I only touch His garment, I will get well." But Jesus turning and seeing her said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." At once the woman was made well.” Mark 15:43, “Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.” Acts 5:14-16, “And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any one of them. Also the people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together, bringing people who were sick or afflicted with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed.” Acts 19:11-12, “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out.” Before we get into the true context of these passages, let me also say that the lance at Etchmiadzin is not the only reported lance that pierced Christ’s side and there exists some controversy about this very lance. See this article for a further detail: http://bibleprobe.com/holy_lance.htm and from YouTube.com: (watch all five parts) Now, in 2 Kings 13:21. The passage indicates power in the bones of Elisha where marauders threw a dead man into Elisha’s tomb and when his body touched the bones of Elisha he was raised from death. Does this mean that we must always assume that the bones of dead saints, prophets, and apostles have inherent power in them? No. Why? Because if we look at the context of 2 Kings 13:21 we see that Elisha prophecied to Joash the King of Israel (v.17-19). Then immediately Elisha dies and was buried and then a time lapse to the spring of the year noting the time it took for Elisha’s body to decay, hence his bones in the tomb. Now we have the miracle of rising a dead man to life in direct relationship with touching Elisha’s bones, which can be properly associated as to provide validity to Elisha’s prophecy. This miraculous event is proof of the validity of Elisha’s prophecy to Joash king of Israel. Must we immediately jump to other conclusions that have no reference to the context of the passage? Can we make other applications from this passage that have no relationship to its context? No. This is what Matthew Henry says: This miracle was a confirmation of his prophecies. And it may have reference to Christ, by whose death and burial, the grave is made a safe and happy passage to life to all believers.Jehoash was successful against the Syrians, just as often as he had struck the ground with the arrows, then a stop was put to his victories. Many have repented, when too late, of distrusts and the straitness of their desires. The same goes for the Apostles, Peter and Paul in Acts 5 and 19 and for Christ in Matthew 9. The gift of healing the Apostles possessed from God was so powerful that even the items they touched or their own shadow caused the sick to heal. Christ’s cloak even emanated His power. Again, the point of the healings is missed if we do not study why God gave these powers to the Apostles and why Christ exercised His own power. It is strictly for the validation of the gospel message! Healings and casting out of evil spirits were to prove that the One from whom the healing comes has power over disease and evil spirits, and even over death! If one goes around claiming to have the remedy for sin and salvation for souls and yet does not have power over anything, how trustworthy would be his claims, his gospel? Not very much, it would be a blind faith and yet the Lord does not lead us blindly, He validates his message with His own power! John 10:25, “Jesus answered them, ‘I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.’ “ John 10:37-38, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” John 14:11, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves.” Does the dead body of Christ in Matthew 15 received by Joseph of Arimathea have any reference to veneration of relics? No, it was so that Scripture can be fulfilled, Isaiah 53:9, “His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death” There really is nothing more to it than that, as if the fulfillment of prophecy is not amazing in and of itself. Many relics have been claimed throughout Christian history, none of which can be proved, but only by a blind acceptance. For argument sake, if the relics were genuine, what power do we think they would possess? Is it not the source of the power God and Christ from them? Does God pass that power to an inanimate object to later be used to “strengthen the faithful”? No. Matt 16:4, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and a sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” John 4:48, “So Jesus said to him, "Unless you people see signs and wonders, you simply will not believe.” So how are we to take this veneration of relics? It is pure idolatry. Rom 1:25, “For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” Rev 21:8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." In 1 John 5:21 we are told, “Little children, guard yourselves from idols.” Why does the Apostle John end his epistle with these words? What was he talking about? Well, read verses 9-11: 1 John 5:9-11, “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son. The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.” It is the testimony of God alone that strengthens us, not the testimony of men. And where is the testimony of God found? In relics? In idols of worship? No, in His Word! We actually make God a liar if we depend and trust in relics and other things besides His simple testimony in His Word. How sure is His Word? 2 Pet 1:19, “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” Peter is saying that the written Word is more sure than that of even the apostolic eye witness previously stated in verses 17-18 where God spoke "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”. Henricksen in his commentary writes: Hence, other versions have an alternative translation: “And we have the word of the prophets ‘made’ more certain.” This wording does justice to the sequence of the apostolic message confirmed by the transfiguration and by the Old Testament Scripture. Although translators favor this rendering, they must admit that the Greek for “the word ‘made’ more certain” is not as accurate a translation as “we have a more reliable word.” Simply put the verb ‘made’ is not in the Greek text. So you see there is no power in relics or the muron stated in this article. I have seen many times the muron being placed onto a baptized Armenian child and yet into adulthood the person is as far strayed from God as any person can be, with no desire to serve and glorify the God who made him but only self seeking, self-righteous and full of nationalistic pride. I was that person until he called me and I started reading His Word. The muron is of no affect. God is the one who calls, justifies, sanctifies and glorifies. Rom 8:30, “and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” 1 Cor 6:11, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” His efficacious grace is applied by the hearing of the true gospel of Christ, that is salvation by grace through faith alone in the merits of Christ alone from His Word alone. Rom 10:17, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” And this hearing is from the Scriptures: James 1:21, "Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls." 2 Tim 3:15, "and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." We hear the true gospel and by that hearing we are called into His kingdom. There are no special encantations or prayers or chants that are required by a special brew of oil. It is simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that saves the sinner. Rom 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. " I will say as the Apostle John has said, “guard yourselves from idols”.

(I didn't know where to post this so I'll post it here, its news, religion and AAC Armenian 'Apostolic' Church all in one. I know this is old news but I needed to comment on it.) Just as expected... The Armenian parliament will be passing an amendment that will ban "non-traditional" religious groups from proselytizing Armenian Apostolic Church members... Why is this amendment on the table of a supposed 'secular state', as Armenia claims to be? Is its purpose to strengthen the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC) through legislation? Why? Here's a theory; The AAC is losing many members to other religions, namely cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons and those identified as 'non-traditional' such as protestant and charismatic churches. Why? Simple, the AAC is bankrupt when it comes to spiritual truth and many know this and are seeking to find the truth of the gospel. They preach nationalism over Christianity. The tragedy is, those who are seeking the truth think they will find it in places other than the word of God. They may even think that they will find it in God's Word but interpreted to fit another false religious system. This fits into the cultic mold where only a few select can interpret the Word of God or have other documents purported to also come by God. The article states Armen Ashotian, a parliament chairman and who I believe introduced the bill to the parliament defended the amendment and said, "This bill is not aimed at strengthening a particular religious organization at the expense of others,” and continued to say, “After all, the strength of a faith is derived not from a law but the tenets and preaching of that organization.” He probably does not realize how true that statement is. This amendment will undoubtedly strengthen the AAC because the AAC does not have the strength of faith that is "derived" from the "tenents and preaching" of its organization. Why do I say this? Because their doctrines do not coincide with the Word of God. This is not an issue of interpretation. Words have meanings and a simple reading of Scripture which God has made understandable to the simple will in fact convince those that there is a great divide in the AAC's doctrines and that found in the Bible. Do you think I'm exaggerating these claims of the exodus of members from the AAC? I'm not; read this other article. They have made 2009 the "Year of the Armenian Youth". Its focus is the Armenian youth of the world. This is not the old trend of the AAC but actually a new program. Nine paragraphs down it reads, "The Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, as well, has begun with the same concern, to reevaluate and underscore the urgent necessity of the presence and role reserved for the youth in our life. Thus, about six years ago, we established a special youth department within the Catholicosate." The AAC feels that if they produce a specific identity in the Armenian youth then they, the youth, will remain within the 'walls' of the AAC. They feel that the youth are "not in crisis" but are "in search in the current troubled world" (paragraph 13). I'm not sure what the difference is when in "searching" they find solace in cultic entrapment, immoral lifestyles like homosexuality, violent crime, theft, drug abuse and so on. Is this not a crisis? Here is another clear attempt from the AAC to be benign in their approach so as to not offend, in order to lure those through kind words void of any truth. If the AAC truly loves their youth they will lovingly warn them that they are in sin and are hopelessly lost, doomed to eternal hell if there is no repentance and faith upon the Lord Jesus Christ. But what we find is a false reassurance that the Armenian youth are "adopted child(ren) of God bought with Christ's blood" (6th paragraph from the bottom). Why? Is it by the mere fact that they are Armenian? Where in Scripture does it point out that we are saved corporately by our national association? Nowhere! That my friend is a lie, and nothing less than that. You want a message of love and truth to the Armenian youth around the world? Point them to Scripture and let Scripture tell them what their real condition is and what is the real solution to that crisis. Here's the condition: Paul, writing to the church at Rome regarding the spiritual condition of all men, Jews and Greeks (non-Jews). Rom 3:9-18, "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE." "THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE, WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING," "THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS"; "WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS"; "THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD, DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS, AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN." "THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES." Does that sound appealing? It describes the condition of every man in the world, including Armenian youth. Paul was quoting from Psalm 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 35, 36, 52, 53, 139, 140, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Isaiah 59 where they speak about a world of sinners, sons of men, not just Jews. It speaks of all men of all the earth including Armenians. Why am I quick to point out the fault of Armenians? I'm not, I'm only pointing out the fact of all men including Armenians because the AAC will not do so. Here is some more of the current condition: 1 Cor 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." Did you notice that drunkards are included, adulterers, fornicators and even effeminate? Is Paul the Apostle serious? There are so many that are this way and yet claim to be Christian by birthright and they are all doomed to hell if they do not repent? Yes, that is the truth. How long have we been this way? Ps 58:3 “The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth.” The passage is clear; they will not inherit the kingdom of God and only one other thing remains for them: Matt 13:41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” That’s our current condition, and the solution is: Rom 10:9-10, “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.” But God is not mocked, do not think for a minute that He only desires an outward obedience but as it says above, one “with the heart” and those who believe and love the Lord with the heart will obey Him: John 14:23-24 “Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.” An outward obedience only produces pride, and pride kills the soul because it was pride that brought down Satan. It is pride that the AAC is feeding the Armenian youth. They finish their statement by clearing explaining the mission of this program and ultimately the mission of the AAC: “Therefore, the Year of Armenian Youth must become the occasion for our church to manifest tangibly its concern and support toward Armenian youth. It must also serve as a challenge to Armenian youth to strengthen their Armenian-Christian identity and their national roots and actively participate in the life and mission of their church, the flourishing of their homeland and the progress of their people.” (4th paragraph from bottom) It is the flourishing of their homeland and the progress of their people by the strengthening of their “Armenian-Christian” identity. How very sad if this is the goal of a church, to strengthen its congregants with nationalistic pride. They have already gone down the wrong path and have turned from the true calling of the true church, Matt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”. It is the making of Christian disciples that is the goal of the Church, that is, disciples of Christ, not of a national church. Those who are disciples of Christ do not have any citizenship on earth, theirs is in heaven. Being Armenian has no benefit in Christianity. God looks at one thing, do you trust your own goodness to save yourself or do you lean only on the righteousness of Christ for salvation knowing that you have none of your own and can only offer God one thing, your sin. Armenian youth, I implore you, repent and believe; that is the only way to a true and loving identity in Christ, in heaven. ...more at http://www.ArmeniansForChrist.com

Wonderful job brother, keep up the good work! Oh, and don't worry about the "flaming arrows" they are but a tool for perseverance. Give thanks to God for it.

Well, then go ahead and prove me wrong. How am I taking it out of context? Show me. Rhetoric, or in other words "Nu uh!" is not a defense of your position. Oh and by the way, there are not hundreds of thousands of protestant denominations and that frankly is not even the issue here and neither does it prove your position. My case is a biblical one. Prove to me by biblical precedence that my position is wrong.

This is not about who is right and who is wrong Ashot. This has to do with the very gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. If the AAC (Armenian Apostolic Church) believes that communion is a sacrificial communion to take away sin, to apease God and expiate transgression, this goes in the face of orthodox (small o) Chrisitanity. This is a works righteousness along with other sacraments they distort like baptism. This damns people to hell. It's more than being right or wrong, it's proclaiming the truth of the good new, the "avedis", the "avedaran". Eph 6:12, "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places." Here is more evidence that the AAC believes that the communion is a sacrifice: By Archbishop Shnork Kaloustian, 1969, Saints and Sacraments: Pgs 39-40: "I. NAMES GIVEN TO HOLY COMMUNION: It has several names according to its various aspects and meanings. It is called: a) Eucharist, which means Blessing or Thanksgiving, and describes its Sacramental aspect. b ) The Lord’s Supper, referring to the occasion on which it was established. c) Communion, because of the action and its results, inasmuch as we communicate with our Lord Himself in this sacrament. d) Sacrifice, which refers to the immolation of our Lord on the Cross, where He shed His Blood, as a victim, for the salvation of mankind. The last two terms are the most common nomenclature used in Armenian. “Holy Sacrifice” or “Sourp Badarak” is the term we use to describe the ritual of Holy Communion." Pg 40: "Holy Communion is not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice. “As Sacrifice, it is the continuation of the sacrifice of Golgotha.” The very words used by our Lord clearly show this: “My Body given . . ., or broken for you,” “My Blood shed . . . for many for the remission of sins.” “These expressions indicate that this Institution is itself a propitiatory sacrifice.” It is not simply a representation of the death of our Lord, but actual and real sacrifice, in which “The Offerer and the Victim are one and the same, our Lord, even if the sacrifice be offered by the priest.” It is not simply a reminder or commemoration of the historical fact of Golgotha, but an actual and objective sacrifice. The purpose of the sacrifice on the Cross was the reconciliation of man with God, the atonement for the sins of man and their expiation, in general. Whereas the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered for specific people, it is the application of the general benefits of the sacrifice of the Cross, to those for whom the Eucharist is celebrated, both for the living and the dead." Now Arad is going to turn around and say, ok its a sacrifice, so, its not a crucifixion. That agani is not true. A perpetual sacrifice that the Badarak is, perpetuates the first sacrifice which is a crucifixion. There is more dialogue here: http://www.armeniansforchrist.com/modules....ewtopic&t=7

You are evading the text and bringing up Luther and Calvin. You actually think Luther and Calvin believed the same way the AAC and Rome believes the badarak/mass to be? Luther's position has been controversial. Luther believed in a real presence but not transubstantiation, the bread and wine do not change, and he surely did not believe it to be a sacrifice to atone for sin. He did not hold to the mass as Rome and the AAC does, as a sacrifice of the real presence of Christ. Calvin most assuredly did not believe this. Just read his Institutes and you'll see. But in any case, neither Luther, nor Calvin, nor Chrysostom, nor Augustine or any other saint have authority to dictate doctrine. We read the interpretations they have and follow their line of thinking and see for ourselves, THROUGH SCRIPTURE ALONE BECAUSE SCRIPTURE INTERPRETS SCRIPTURE, if what they are saying is consistent with God's Word. I can show you many sources how many saints in history did not believe in transubstantiation and a sacrifice to atone for sin at the mass. I am not going to answer any of your rediculous claims about me. This is obviously not true and I've explained myself to you many times at the unshakable forums. I'm glad you posted on the forums at armeniansforchrist.com. I only hope you are looking for an answer instead of trying to always give one.

Merry Christmas! Isaiah 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Matthew 1:21 "She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Speaking of Jesus Christ over 700 years before He was ever born: Isaiah 53: Is 53:1 Who has believed our message? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? Is 53:2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. Is 53:3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. Is 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. Is 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. Is 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. Is 53:7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. Is 53:8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? Is 53:9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. Is 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. Is 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Is 53:12 Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. Believe on Him today. This is why He came, this was His purpose, to save sinners for which we all are! But those who think that they are already righteous, Christ did not come for them: Mark 2:17 And hearing this, Jesus *said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Luke 5:32 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance." Merry Christmas, the promised Lamb of God has come!

Well Christmas is here and hearts will be better prepared if they understand the heresy of the Badarak. My presentation of the Badarak is accurate, very accurate. I quote from the text itself and show the surrounding context. Anyone who has a basic understanding of english can see clearly that the Badarak is a sacrifce to atone for sin. The elements are transubstantiated into the actual body and blood of Christ. This IS the church doctrine. And so, those changed elements are ingested after they are offered up to God as a "true" sacrifice "continually perpetuated" even today. Read the article again and find these in the text. You have not answered any of the text I mentioned but are supplying your opinion and probably the opinions of priests who are uninformed of Scripture. This is why there are Armenian protestants today, because they do not want to partake of these heresies perpetuated in the Armenian "Apostolic" Church.

The badarak is NOTHING like the communion service at an Armenian Evangelical Church. If it is the same, except the old krapar, then they are both heretical. Read the following article and see for yourself: http://www.armeniansforchrist.com/modules....ticle&sid=9

Understanding the truth properly is not wholly dependent upon the teacher. A true child of God will recognize error when he hears it: John 10:27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; " If someone teaches a "truth" contrary to Scripture, where all truth only resides, then God's sheep will abhore it, flee from it and race to a teacher who teaches the truth. This brings up a secondary issue which is the perspecuity (clarity) of Scripture. Scripture is clear and easily understandible; it interprets itself. If one is an honest and diligent student of the Word, then he will find the true meaning of every hard and "controversial" passage. There is only one meaning in every passage but that one meaning may have several applications in a persons life. It's not "what I think it means" it's "what does the passage mean" which is the case at hand. Along with that statement you must also realize that what you believe will define your religion. What you believe about Jesus Christ will define if you are a Christian or not. So it is not "believe what you want to believe", it is rather "believe what the Bible teaches". Listening to others who are proven teachers of the Word is vital. This doesn't contradict what I said above. Teachers are given to the church to teach and guide the church and the teachers are just as accountable to biblical consistency as anyone else. This again goes back to what the clear Word of God says and if the teacher is in line with it. Very untrue: Prov 28:9 "He who turns away his ear from listening to the law, Even his prayer is an abomination. " Prov 15:29 "The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous. " Yes God is able to hear all the prayers but hates the ones from those who have rejected Him, who have rejected His Son, the incarnate God, the Lord Jesus Christ: John 14:6-7 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."

This old heresy of Christ having a wife, etc has already been debunked. I recommend reading this book: http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_info....;products_id=41 Thanks,

Finally some substance!! I never knew I had such intimidating Bible muscles. ;-) You are showing your inability to recognize the background of those whom you disagree with. I am certainly not a “revivalist” in whatever sense you understand it. I am of the reformed protestant faith which by great sacrifice have stood up to the powers of Satan within the Romish and Eastern churches. We have stood our ground on Biblical sufficient and the sufficiency of Christ. Read about the reformers, not just Luther and Calvin, there were more. Show me which religion tells you that you are a sinner from birth, heading to hell of which you cannot escape by your own strength, and that the only Savior of men, who satisfied His own wrath by sending His own Son (the incarnate God-man Jesus Christ) to die as a propitiation as a substitionary death. None, because all other religions begin with the premise that the “gods” can be appeased by men’s merits or that men are inherently good. They worship visible graven images as their gods who are mute and stupid and have no power. But the true religion, is the worship of the Triune and invisible God of the universe who has revealed Himself to men as recorded in Scripture. Actually, I am reading agathangelos, but not by Ormanian, by Robert Thomson, “The Teaching of Saint Gregory”, of which Thomson says in the forward, “since 1970, the discovery of new versions of the History of Agat’angelos has highlighted the complexity of the transmission of the story of Saint Gregory and the conversion of Armenia. It was a very popular story outside of Armenia, as versions in Greek, Arabic, Georgian, syriac, Latin, and other languages indicate. The Teaching was not included in all these ancient translations, but it is important to take these discoveries into account in any re-evaluation of the content.” So you see , even the history of agathangelos has its own said revisions as transmitted through time. Are these the trustworthy references you allude to? In any case, I will pick up Ormanian’s version. Let’s see what he has to say. Thank you for the reference. Also, you should read the following regarding your assertion of the late dating of the Mosaic text, “Of further interest with regard to the dating of the Mosaic Law, as well as Deuteronomy, is the discovery of various treaties and legal documents in the area of ancient Babylon. The suzerainty treaties are of particular interest, since these were treaties enacted between a great king who might rule over an empire, and a lesser king. The treaties had a covenant form, and had a specific structure during the second millennium: a prologue, a historic prelude, stipulations, instructions for preservation of the enactments, and curses and blessings that might come about as a result of keeping or breaking the treaty.79 This form fits both the pattern of the book of the Covenant (Exodus 19-24), as well as the book of Deuteronomy. It is of further interest that the treaty form changed over the following millennium such that first millennium suzerainty treaties omitted two of the aforementioned five sections.80 If the book of the Covenant and Deuteronomy are both written in the style of a suzerainty treaty, this places them both in the second millennium, not the first millennium. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence alone, there is, no confident basis for dating the Mosaic Law in a time period outside of the mid-second millennium B.C. " [79]Wiseman, p. 144; Walter Kaiser, "Exploding the JEDP Theory or the Documentary Hypothesis," pp. 6-7. [80]Kaiser, "Exploding the JEDP Theory or the Documentary Hypothesis," p. 6. I don’t think you have given ample room for the conservative view of the text only because, as I have said, your presuppositions of the historicity of Christianity. Pagan is the common term to those who worship any untrue god. You can deem me pagan in that sense as well but one of us is mistaken. The question is, who is the one that is mistaken? Once again I am not a “revivalist” in any sense. Your definition of a revivalist may be accurate, although you have made the same error of assuming that I have “condemned before even knowing the other person’s essence, character and beliefs.” You have shown me your condescending “character” with your with your pious evaluation of your supposed knowledge of history. You have shown me your “beliefs” with your renunciation of Christianity and in turn your “essence” is apparent. This is not descriptive of a revivalist but that of a discerning Christian. Your first error is comparing Christianity to the Romish religion. The second Vatican Council does say that all sincere roads lead to the same God, which could not be further from the truth of Scripture. Christ said specifically that: John 14:6 “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” And, 1 Tim 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” So I stand against the Brahmins, Rome and its monasticism, and the Eastern/Oriental churches which purport the opposite without any knowledge of Scripture. The “outside information” you point cannot direct Christian’s to truth. What it does is only point to the wavering theories of men throughout history. I hold to Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone as the infallible guide to doctrine and conduct for Christian. I have made the claim that the Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts. The message of the gospel has not changed from the manuscripts and to the current versions of the text (Bible) we have today, minus the New World Translation, which is the modern day Arians (Jehovah’s Witnesses) revision of the original text. Compare the codices to today’s text and you will see for yourself. So you agree that they are ‘not the same’ person and as I pointed out nowhere near the Savior figure of Christ. Not sure what you mean here. Myth is not historical? What is your point? Christ being a “mythical” character is your preconceived baseless assumption. Have you ever considered that Messianic prophecy, which comes from the beginning of creation: Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." This being the first messianic prophecy from the fall! All peoples of the world transmitted this truth as evolved myths and superstitions, hence Mihr, etc. Text that pre-dates Old Testament manuscripts do not necessarily assume they carry original thought. It could as well mean that they carry thought passed down from the beginning interposed with false, man-made concoctions of deities, etc. What differentiates the Hebraic text is that it is consistent in its monotheistic yet Triune claim of God and the plan of God in redemption and eschatology. Well at least I didn’t disappoint your 3rd prediction from my response. Although, I did quote Scripture but I quoted it as historical text. Sorry to disappoint you. We the maligned are.

You have completely evaded any substantive dialogue and continue your ad-hominem attacks. If you are not willing to even deal with the questions of the comparitive codices then you are clearly exposing your own ignorance in the matter. You have successful denied any "competitive thought" interchange with me and ironically acuse me of not wanting the same with you. If you want to speak about the canon of Scripture I would love to but I don't think you really do. I think you are too satisfied in your inadequate understanding of the subject to dare to "learn" from others. You call me arrogant but are not teachable yourself, a true sign of arrogance. I looked at the link you supplied and found no problem with the content. Are you waiting for manuscripts from 10,000 BC? If all the evidence of the world is given to you, you will still not care since you are set in your presupposition that Christianity is a farse. I tell you it is not and if you have the courage to have a substantive dialogue then I am here. If not, then go about your rantings.

Your eyes seem to have clear vision of other's "arrogant assumption" but very clouded when perceiving your own. It was you who first stated I had a "rehashed and distorted Chrstianity". I simply responded to such searing attacks with the source of the problem, a rebellious heart. Call it arrogance if you will, I call it truth. I was once as you but by God's grace the scales were lifted and I saw my boastful pitiful pride and I pray one day you will also see yours. Now to your misconceptions... I'm still waiting for substance apart from your continual baseless claims. Are you an authority on the subject? If so, show me some substance. Why do you claim what you claim, on what basis? Is it an "obvious common knowledge" that the Bible is errant and has changed over time or is it just truly what you have made it out to be which is that of the premature convictions of the naturalistic humanist or in your case the mystical humanist. How can you ignore the overwhelming manuscript evidence that points to the near exact copies of the literal text of the Bible. No other literature has been preserved so precisely over time. Are you ignoring the Nash Papyrus, the Orientales 4445, the Codex Cairensis, the Aleppo Codex of the Whole Old Testament, the Codex Leningradensis (B 19 ), the Babylonian Codex of the Latter Prophets (MS Heb. B3), the Reuchlin Codex of the Prophets, the Cairo Geniza Manuscripts, the Erfurt Codices (E1, 2, 3), and even the Dead Sea Scrolls?!! These are just Old Testament codices. What about the New Testament codices like the P52, JOHN RYLANDS FRAGMENT (C. A.D. 117-138), the P45, P46, P47 CHESTER BEATTY PAPYRI (A.D. 250), the P66, P72, P75 BODMER PAPYRI (A.D. SECOND-THIRD CENTURY), the CODEX VATICANUS ( (C. 325-350), the CODEX SINAITICUS ( [ALEPH]) (C. 340), the CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A) (C. 450), the CODEX EPHRAEMI RESCRIPTUS © (C. 345), the CODEX BEZAE (D [codeX CANTABRIGIENSIS]) (C. 450 OR C. 550), the CODEX CLAROMONTANUS (D2 OR DP2) (C. 550), the CODEX BASILENSIS (E), the CODEX LAUDIANUS 35 (E2 OR EA), the CODEX SANGERMANENSIS (E3 OR EP), the CODEX BOERELIANUS (F), the CODEX AUGIENSIS (F2 OR FP). I can go on and on and on. Ideas and credit? What do you mean? Christ is not an idea. He is the one and only Savior of men because He is ABLE to atone for sin and has because He is the proper God-man representative to be the propitiatory sacrifice for sin as the sinless unblemished Lamb of God. This is not an idea but a reality. Your god is not a savior god from sins and eternal hell but a savior in a temporal sense. Your god won't even acknowledge that you are a sinner which is considerable evidence that your religion is artificial and man-centered since man will never relegate himself as a sinner. You can get into linguistics and such but the underlying issue is not tracing the root of a word but in finding the evidence of what one claims historically and personally that is in the dealings of everyday life. You must be objective. Also, I do not in any way defend the Armenian Apostolic Church. I believe wholeheartedly that the church is apostate and teaches a religion of works salvation which is foreign to Scripture. That might not interest you but it should because that is the Gospel of Christ that He came down to save sinners. As the Word of God says that we "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, " Rom 3:23. I know of the Armenian Church's inquisitions of the borborites, the first true inquisitions of any organized church. So don't side me with them because I am not of them. I encourage competitive thought and every TRUE Christian would do the same instead of using the sword to gain adherents. As Christ told Peter, Matt 26:52 "Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." Not so as I have shown merely with the short list of codices. If you would like to have a rational discussion without the flaming arrows I would definitely prefer that.

No, only that dead men have no ears to hear.

Thanks for the links!

Where can one find the canons in Armenian?

Then you should make those exceptions known and not stereotype or make such prejudice blanket statements.

Well, let's start with the false doctrine of full Apostolic Succession. Can you show me from what I posted initially above that there really is NO discrepency biblically? And after your response we'll get into the other issues.

Well, where do I begin? Since you've already concluded that I have "much to learn" I will begin with a question. Are you assuming that I made the claim that all Armenians are Christian by birthright? You've got that reversed. I believe all people are lost sinners by birthright, (Psalm 51:5, 58:3, 14:2-3, Ephesians 2:3, Job 15:14, Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiates 9:3), including Armenians, that is why we went after false gods. You confuse the personal aspect of loving your enemies with the judicial command of "eye for an eye". I'm not sure where you were going with the Isaiah and Joel passages. Your tangents are a blur. I read God's Word intelligently, that is how I love the Lord with all my "mind", I don't throw away reason with religion. I hope you don't think all religious people do that, do you? Also, loving your enemy does not mean allowing any one to rape and kill your family "lovingly". It means to forgive them if it is done just as God has forgiven you (the believer in Christ) your sins. It is a very difficult commandment to obey, it is actually impossible, because it goes against the grain of our nature but it is the very nature of Christ: "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth." Isaiah 53:7 And even on the cross He prayed that His murderers be forgiven. How great His love for His enemies!

And there you go... Choose anything that does not require a Lord, one that we must submit to as God, Savior and Lord, the only one, we'll reject that because we are autonomous. A Satanic lie. Call me an idolater if you will, I idolize Christ because He is worthy of it. Your false accusation of Christianity being distorted and "pushed on us" is the classic response from a rebellious heart. One who will not take the time and really, without bias, research the overwhelming manuscript evidence of how the Bible has not changed in its original meaning and has been kept for our generation today in tact, is one who is willingly blind. Show me how its "rehashed" and I will show you your error. Or do you not have any substance to what you are saying but just zeal without knowledge. Mihr is a pagan manacheian god of war and justice who is not, as Christ is, but I'm sure you already knew that but I'm not sure how you equate that with Christ who is the true and only God and Savior of men, an all encompassing omnipotent triune yet one God.

Arpa, are you a Christian? Matt 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,"

No, you misunderstood, I did not say abandon all nationalism, I said do not make nationalism prevelant above Christ, the person of Christ not some generic idea of what Christianity is. I am referring to the person of Christ Himself. If anything prevails above Christ it is idolarty.

This is why: Luke 20:46-47 "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake offer long prayers. These will receive greater condemnation." These scribes are identically comparitive to these priests. They devour widows homes, that is, they take advantage of the supposed positions they hold - the keys to the kingdom, in which they hold ransom souls who must pay to be relinquished of their sins. Woe to them! Instead of preaching repentance from sin and a life toward God and the FREE grace of God unto salvation: Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." they burden the people so harshly and yet Christ tells us: Matt 11:29-30, "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." But the yoke of the priests is hard and their burden heavy. Onnig