Letters to the Editor
I recently saw a documentary on ‘The Lost Gospel of
Judas’ on TV a couple of weeks ago, and in the documentary,
that was very interesting, it mentioned about the Gnostic gospels
(the gospels that were not chosen to be included in the Bible
itself, of which there are about 30). Elaine Pagel has written
quite a few books on the Gnostic gospels, and won various awards
such as the Rockefeller, Guggenheim and MacArthur Fellowships in
three consecutive years.
I was just wondering what the ‘Christian’ view
(and Omega Time’s view) on these gospel’s are? Just a
suggestion, but this would make for a very interesting article in
the future if you’re ever short on ideas! Look forward to
hearing back. God Bless.
PS - I really enjoy reading the very interesting and topical
articles that are regularly written, I’m a big fan of Barry
Smith too and it’s great to see his work carried on, and to
a much greater depth.
We accept the challenge of writing on the non-inspired
writings excluded from our Bible and the inspired writings
included. Keep watching! In brief, the matter was settled for the
Catholics in 1546 at the Council of Trent, where the Apocrypha
was added to the Bible we know today. In the article to come, we
will show that decision to be absolutely in error. The Protestant
churches never accepted the Apocrypha, or the Gospel of Mary,
Thomas, Philip or Judas. Historical writings are fine, but if God
has not inspired them, they are not Holy Writ, regardless of what
Dan Brown or any other self-appointed expert says.
I have been a subscriber to The Omega Times for a few years. I
recently changed my subscription to an online only version. I was
wondering if there are any plans to make the magazine available
in PDF format. I find it is very time consuming to print every
page off your web site and PDF would make things so much easier.
I also subscribe to www.endtimes.com and their magazine is
available in PDF format.
Any chance this might happen for the Omega Times? I really
enjoy the magazine, particularly the articles by Andrew (his dad
would be proud). Thanks.
Thank you for your kind words and support. We appreciate
them! To answer your questions, we place our primary focus on the
magazine, not the Web. If this sounds a little behind the times,
there are very good reasons. Christianity has always been
maligned as a crutch for weak people with a poverty mentality.
Our vision was to produce a magazine of excellence, at least
equal with what the world produces. The object was to get the
attention of both the churched and the unchurched, rather than
have them dismiss the magazine and its contents out of hand
because of an unexciting presentation. We have current testimony
of unchurched people reading the magazine because its
presentation drew them in. The magazine then, is our priority,
not a black and white PDF printed page. Secondly, I wrote in the
December editorial that we were needful of greater magazine
subscription numbers or the print cost would be beyond our reach
and the magazine would die. Because of these things we have
considered shutting the website subscription down, because it is
unhelpful to our survival. PDF format would just hasten the day
at this stage of the game. Thirdly, while we understand that you
wish to print for private use, we would point out to our readers
that it is a breach of copyright and Christian ethics to copy for
free distribution unless permission is given. We know this has
been happening to our detriment, and to the detriment of faithful
subscribers - another good reason for not allowing PDF at this
stage. I trust this explains our position. Editor.
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I see you
answered a letter of mine on your letters page of December 2006,
which was sent to you by someone else. I didn’t sent it.
However, please permit me to reply. I would ask, how can Acts 20:7
be any possible reason for keeping Sunday, when it is
scriptural that the New Testament church gathered together daily
for fellowship and teaching about Jesus (Acts 2:46, Acts 5:42)? If
then Acts 20:7 had said ‘the second day of the week’,
or ‘the third’, would this justify modern Christians
keeping Monday or Tuesday instead? There is no command in this
scripture to change the day.
Concerning 1 Corinthians 16:2, the only command here is to
gather money for the saints at Jerusalem. There is no command
here to keep Sunday as a day of worship. Both of these scriptures
refer to the Sabbath day in the Greek, and if you had read the
whole study you would have seen the reasons why I believe that.
If you would like a copy I will send you one free.
When you say, "The law was superseded by the dispensation of
grace", you write as if the law was a thing of the past. But some
of the commandments under the law were, to love God with all our
hearts and with all our soul, and with all our might (Deut 6:5),
and to love our neighbour as ourselves (Lev 19:18). They were to
have no other gods before God, make no graven images, not to bow
down to them, not to take the name of the Lord in vain, to
remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, not to dishonour their
father and mother, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to
steal, not to bear false witness, and not to covet anything that
belongs to others (Exodus 20:3-17). Surely you do not mean that all
these commands were superseded by grace? The New Testament
Christians under the teaching of the Apostles were "all zealous
of the law" (Acts 21:20), and a faithful Christian named Ananias
is described as, "a devout man according to the law" (Acts 22:12).
How can this be so if the law has been superseded?
I would be grateful if you would be gracious enough to print
my Email address, so that anyone who wants to know the truth can
write to me and request a full study on the Sabbath day. Many
thanks, and God bless you.
Brother Roy Page
Please accept our deepest apologies. The letter contained
your name and we saw it for what it appeared to be, a letter from
yourself. In answer to the letter above, once again I say, when
you know which Covenant you are under, the day of Worship is
settled, and your reply ignores Hosea 2:11. Of course the Law is
valid – in the sense that it is overshadowed by grace,
which is something much greater. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do
not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did
not come to destroy but to fulfil." You quickly forget Luke 16:16
- "The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the
kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into
it." John 1:17 says – "For the law was given through Moses,
but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Your comment on
Acts 20:7 is answered by Galatians 5:18 – "But if you are
led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. The Disciples had
been baptised in the Holy Ghost, being taught all things. They
were led of the Spirit. Non-Spirit filled people can be led by
anything. Galatians 5:4 says – "You have become estranged
from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have
fallen from grace." Jesus broke the law many times (healed on
Sabbath). If something hadn’t already changed i.e. Law to
Grace, then Jesus was not a perfect man but a sinner!! The
adulteress would have been stoned if the Law had been allowed to
operate. Romans 2:29 says – "But he is a Jew who is one
inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit,
not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." As
to printing your email address, this is not possible. Our
position, along with 99% of Protestantism, is clear. It would be
remiss of us to point people to another Doctrine. This is a new
season in God – jump in and enjoy it. Editor