“The main worship in Babylon is to Dagon, and in Chaldean times the head of the church was the representative of Dagon, he was infallible and people had to kiss his ring and his slipper, and he was also addressed as ‘Your Holiness’. he also wore the fish mitre and robes. ”
On his blog, Mr Abe Arganiosa posed this question:
Is It True That the Miter of the Pope and Bishops Is Patterned After Egyptian Paganism?
To which he proudly answered this:
ANSWER: DEFINITENLY NOT! THE EPISCOPAL MITER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS TAKEN FROM THE HOLY GARMENTS WORN BY THE HIGH RANKING MINISTERS OF GOD IN THE TEMPLE AND THE MEETING TENT OF ISRAEL:
He then proceeded to quote bible verses from the book of Exodus that seemed to say that indeed the mitre was used by God’s ancient servants. The verses talked about ceremonies in which the priest wore a headgear. The verses he quoted from the book of Exodus were: 28:4. 28:37, 39:31, 28:39, 29:6, 39:28.
So the assertions of Mr Arganiosa on his blog are:
- The mitre used by the Catholic church is based on God’s ancient peoples, specifically ancient Israel.
- The mitre was used by the ancient people of God, ancient Israel.
Let examine Mr Arganiosa’s claims and see if they have some substance.
Abe Arganiosa
A casual check of the verses he quoted revealed that not all bible version render the verse to say “mitre”! Actually a good majority of bible versions render the headgear as “turban”. So, the second assertion of Mr Arganiosa that the people of God in the time of Moses wore a mitre is on a shaky foundation. He should have consulted other versions of the bible to make sure he is right but he obviously did not do this and now he’s in danger of being inadequate in his research. Or maybe he did to intentionally mislead?
The Turban, wound as a "Mitznefet" (left) for the Kohen Gadol and as a "Migba'at" (right) for the ordinary Kohen
What exactly is in the Hebrew rendition of the verses he quoted? Again a cursory check of the bible reveals that the Hebrew word which was translated to both mitre and turban by different version is “mitsnepheth“. Mitsnepheth means a piece of cloth woven around the head. One has to agree that even today, people in the middle east wear some sort of headgear wrapped around their head to keep the sun and heat away. So it won’t be too far fetched to think that a turban is the most likely headgear used by the early inhabitants of the Middle East. In fact, some Hebrew websites describe the apparel of ancient Hebrews to include a turban.
Clearly, even common sense dictates that the “mitre” quoted by Mr Arganiosa is a turban similar to the graphic at right and is a long piece of cloth wrapped around the head. Now let’s compare this to the mitre used by the Catholic church.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org):
Mitre of the Catholic Church
The mitre is a kind of folding-cap. It consists of two like parts, each stiffened by a lining and risingto a peak; these are sewn together on the sides, but are united above by a piece of material that can fold together. Two lappets trimmed on the ends with fringe hang down from the back. The mitre is, theoretically, always supposed to be white. The official “Cæremoniale Romanum” distinguishes three kinds of mitres: the mitra pretiosa, auriphrygiata, and simplex. The first two differ from each other only in the greater or less richness of the ornamentation; the mitra simplex, or simple mitre, is one of white silk or white linen entirely without ornament. The fringe on the lappets at the back should be red.
Origin
The pontifical mitre is of Roman origin: it is derived from a non-liturgical head-covering distinctive of the pope, the camelaucum, to which also the tiara is to be traced. The camelaucum was worn as early as the beginning of the eighth century, as is shown by the biography of Pope Constantine I (708- 815) in the “Liber Pontificalis”. The same headcovering is also mentioned in the so-called “Donation of Constantine”. The Ninth Ordo states that the camelaucum was made of white stuff and shaped like a helmet. The coins of Sergius III (904-11) and of Benedict VII (974-83), on which St. Peter is portrayed wearing a camelaucum, give the cap the form of a cone, the original shape of the mitre. The camelaucum was worn by the pope principally during solemn processions. The mitre developed from the camelaucum in this way: in the course of the tenth century the pope began to wear this head-covering not merely during processions to the church, but also during the subsequent church service. Whether any influence was exerted by the recollection of the sacerdotal head-ornament of the high-priest of the Old Testament is not known, but probably not—at least there is no trace of any such influence. It was not until the mitre was universally worn by bishops that it was called an imitation of the Jewish sacerdotal head-ornament.
source: newadvent.org
Need I say more? A folding cap is not at all similar to a long piece of linen cloth wrapped around the head. The Catholic encyclopedia has more than enough information contradicting Mr Arganiosa’s claims. Too bad that Mr Arganiosa seems to not even know the history of his own religion.
To recap, we’ve just established that both of Mr Arganiosa’s claim are not true and also established the following:
- The mitre used by the Catholic church is not based on the turban used by the ancient people of God.
- A turban was used by the ancient people of God.
But then we’re still left by the question posed to Mr Arganiosa, which is
Is It True That the Miter of the Pope and Bishops Is Patterned After Egyptian Paganism?
"St". Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, wearing a mitre
As is stated by the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Pope’s mitre is of Roman origin! Read again, Roman origin, NOT Christian origin. It is derived from camelaucum. What is a camelaucum? Again, the Catholic encyclopedia tells us that the camelaucum was first used by Pope Constantine during his reign in the 8th century and was part of the supposed donation of Emperor Constantine.
Suffice it to say, we can safely assert with much authority that Mr Arganiosa doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that the mitre used by the Catholic church is of pagan influence.
Ask yourself this: do you think a supposedly Christian religion is well justified in using a pagan instrument in its practices?
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Ask yourself this: do you think a supposedly Christian religion is well justified in using a pagan instrument in its practices?”
Citing similarities between Catholic practices and pagan practices proves nothing if there is no actual connection. One could take virtually anything—even McDonald’s golden arches—and do the same: The Encyclopedia Americana (article: “arch”) says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. As Babylon was called “the golden city” (Is. 14:4, KJV), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered again and again about the supposed pagan origins of the Catholic Church.
It is the same method atheists use in seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Catholic Church. By this method, one also could condemn Protestant and Evangelical denominations such as the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist and Nazarene: Basic things such as prayer and kneeling in prayer would have to be rejected, as pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water. The list could go on and on.
By this method, even the Bible would have to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible were also known among pagans:
* raising hands in worship,
* taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple,
* offering sacrifices without blemish,
* a sacred ark,
* a city of refuge,
* bringing forth water from a rock,
* laws written on stone,
* fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire,
* the offering of first fruits, and
* tithes.
By this method, the Lord himself would be pagan.
1.The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8).
2.Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14).
3.Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2).
4.Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright morning star” (Rev. 22:16).
5.Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15).
6.Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).
Taking a stand against “paganism” should not be carried to a foolish extreme. We do not refrain from using the word janitor, even though it comes from Janus, the Roman god of doors and gates. We do not avoid using the word CEREAL, even though it comes from Ceres, the goddess of grains. We do not refrain from using the word PANIC, even though it comes from the god Pan, who went about scaring people. We don’t refuse to visit a MUSEUM, even though the word comes from the Muses, the nine daughters of Zeus who presided over learning and arts.
According to Browser’s Book of Beginnings, the earliest evidence of a game that featured two opposing teams kicking, tossing, and aggressively advancing a ball in opposite directions was practiced 5,000 years ago in Egypt—as a fertility rite. Imagine a parent sending a note to her child’s school: “My son is not to play football—it’s pagan.” It is obvious: Finding a pagan similarity does not, in itself, provide connection.
Even if a primitive tribe worshiped a tree, Christians who decorate a Christmas tree do not do the same thing. If they regarded it as a god, would they throw it out to be picked up by trash collectors? Even if pagans worshiped the sun, there is no connection with Christians who attend a sunrise service in honor of Christ’s Resurrection. After all, it was “when the sun had risen” that the women came to the tomb and found it empty (Mark 16:2). If some ancient people worshiped Dagon as a fish-god, this has no connection with Christians who place fish symbols on their cars.
Again, circular argument.
You need to first establish that the first century church headed by Christ and preached by the Apostles practiced pagan based rituals such as the use of mitre, celebrating lent, ash wednesday, christmas, etc. Failing that, you argument also fails.
Everything will fall into place if you understand the implications of Jesus bestowal on the Apostles on the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18).
Unless you’re Apostles Peter, verse 16:19 does not refer to you.
As far as verse 18:18, you need to first establish that you’re a disciple of Christ before you can claim that this applies to you. Mind you, a disciple is one who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another. One of the doctrines of the Lord Jesus is that there is only ONE God, the Father in heaven. I don’t think the Catholic church teaches that doctrine, on the contrary they teach the trinity which is totally opposite that of the Lord Jesus’ teachings.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”You need to first establish that the first century church headed by Christ and preached by the Apostles practiced pagan based rituals such as the use of mitre, celebrating lent, ash wednesday, christmas, etc. Failing that, you argument also fails.”
And you need to establish first if INC can be trace HISTORICALLY back to the time of Jesus and NOT 1914!
ok. since history is an account of the past let’s see the connection between the past and the present. What was the teacings of the first century Church of Christ?
That the church was founded and headed by the Lord Jesus Christ
Who’s the head of the INC? According to INC doctrines the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
who’s the head of the Catholic church?
There you go.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”As far as verse 18:18, you need to first establish that you’re a disciple of Christ before you can claim that this applies to you. Mind you, a disciple is one who believes and helps to spread the doctrine of another. ”
HOW then can the INC be disciples of Christ when your ministers cannot trace its way back to the apostles BUT through SELF-PROCLAMATION! As I’ve reiterated,it is recorded in the gospels (WHICH YOU ARE IGNORING)that the apostles teachings would be PASSED DOWN after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).
The apostles TRANSMITTED this authority TO THEIR successors (Acts 1:15-26). Paul exhorted a newly-ordained bishop,
“Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you by the prophetic words with the IMPOSITION OF HANDS [ordination] of the presbyterate” (1 Tim. 4:14).
AND YET HOW CAN INC MINISTERS BE SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES?
THEY CAN NEVER CLAIM THAT SINCE ONE ONLY HAS TO CHECK THE CONSISTENCY OF THE HISTORY OF THEIR CHURCH WHICH SADLY DATES BACK ONLY THROUGH 1914!
SELF-PROCLAMATION IS WHAT THEY CAN ALL DO. AS SCRIPTURE SAYS:
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
You’re going back to the same argument which I’ve already debunked.
And you’ve not answered my points. As I’ve said disciples of Christ obey the teachings of Christ. That’s what the INC does, unlike the Catholic church who only follow teachings of men. Read the blog. Abe Arganiosa is doing what the pagan egyptians are doing.
You said “Citing similarities between Catholic practices and pagan practices proves nothing if there is no actual connection.”
How this for similarity, God said not to vow to idols and then we see Roman Catholic bowing to idols? read my blog The Catholic Church is in the bible
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”Who’s the head of the INC? According to INC doctrines the Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Iglesia Ni Cristo.”UNQUOTE
INDEED.IT IS SO EASY TO CLAIM that your church is headed by Jesus Christ.
BUT apart from CLAIMING this and that,you need to have historical backups to prove that your church was indeed PRESENT in the early centuries.
So are you saying Jesus Christ FOUNDED it? If that is the case,where was INC during the past several centuries?
Did your church even existed in the 16th century or so?
Were there INC ministers to proclaim the good news at the time of Aguinaldo and Bonifacio?
Please answer
History again? We’ve talked about that in your other comments. Please refer to those. In summary, the Catholic church cannot claim to be the Church of Christ because it’s just not.
Please research the bible. Again, for someone who belongs to the church which claims to have “compiled” the bible you certainly don’t know a lot about its contents.
QUOTE FROM RESBAK:”As I’ve said disciples of Christ obey the teachings of Christ. That’s what the INC does, unlike the Catholic church who only follow teachings of men.” UNQUOTE
Unlike the Catholic Church who only follow teachings of men? Really? You have NO RIGHT to say that since, isnt it that INC’s doctrines, primary of which – that Jesus is NOT God, is a belief of Felix Manalo.
All Christians around the world are acknowledging that Jesus is GOd and yet didn’t it made you wonder why INC’s belief is different?
The problem is Manalo and your INC ministers are interpreting the scripture on their own but the scriptures on the contrary dispels this on 2 Peter 3:15-16:
“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters.
In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”
Jesus is not God is a belief of Bro Felix Y Manalo? why yes. And where did he based that belief? The bible!
plain, clear and simple.
2 Peter 3:15-16 applies to you and the catholic church. You see a simple verse as the one above and you try your hardest to spin another meaning to it.
FROM RESBAK:”For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, THE MAN Jesus Christ.
plain, clear and simple.
2 Peter 3:15-16 applies to you and the catholic church. You see a simple verse as the one above and you try your hardest to spin another meaning to it.”
THE PROBLEM IS THAT BECAUSE THE VERSE INDICATES THE “MAN JESUS CHRIST”,INC IS INVESTING ON THAT 1 VERSE ALONE FOR THEIR MAIN BELIEF AND YET NEGLECTING THE OTHER VERSES IN SCRIPTURES!
First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).
It is by no means true, and most certainly Paul does not say that because Christ our lord and savior is the mediator between God and man in one sense, it follows that we his creatures cannot mediate with him for one another in quite another sense. On the contrary, we shall find on examination that Paul uses the fact that we have a mediator—who is the one mediator between God and man—as a great argument why we should mediate for one another in his name.
How many verses do you need? or want?
The God-man doctrine was never taught by the Lord Jesus nor the Apostles and is unbiblical. The God-man concept was prevalent in pagan religions before Christianity. Please research Osiris.
FROM RESBAK:” What was the teacings of the first century Church of Christ?
That the church was founded and headed by the Lord Jesus Christ”
INDEED! But was there an Filipino IGLESIA NI CRISTO minister preaching the gospels in the earlier centuries?
Was there an IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTER attacking IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, also called Theophorus, proclaiming to the Church at Ephesus in Asia ABOUT JESUS BEING GOD in his Letter to the Ephesians 1 in A.D. 110?
Was there an IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTER rejecting the basic definition of Christ’s DIVINITY given at the COUNCIL OF NICEA in 325.?
Was there an IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTER rejecting the COUNCIL OF EPHESUS in the summer of 431 a.d. of for specifically uphelding the title of Theotokos for the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Was there an IGLESIA NI CRISTO MINISTER refuting Pope Dionysius’ claims of the TRINITY in his Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria 1-3 A.D. 262?
You see,you always go back to your argument that only the INC teaches that there is only one God while the RCC has three and yet you cannot refute my other charges.
Oh please don’t be so ignorant as to deny that Felix Manalo is the founder of INC when the mere fact that you CELEBRATE every 27th of July of every year is proof of that! If you don’t know that,then what on earth are you celebrating on that day for?
Your church is just 95 years old as compared to the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church. By that logic,nowhere was INC to be found in the previous centuries!
- No. There were Apostles.
- No. The Apostles are all deceased by then.
- No. Same as above.
- No. Same as above.
- No. Same as above.
Just because there were INC ministers during those times doesn’t prove a point. What you should ask is if what you’ve enumerated came from or agreed on by the Apostles. And the answered is a resounding No.
Show me a doctrine of the Iglesia Ni cristo which states that Brother Felix Y. Manalo IS THE FOUNDER of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. You won’t find one because it’s not a doctrine of the INC. The Iglesia Ni Cristo doctrine is that founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo or Church of Christ is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.
If you only basis for being the true Church of Christ is being old then Judaism is the true Church of Christ.
FROM RESBAK:”The belief of the Iglesia ni Cristo is that Jesus is man.”
Then why apply the title LORD to Jesus Christ when that TITLE is ONLY APPLIED TO GOD.
“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Ex 20:2-3).
“You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev 19:2)
Why? Because God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ..
Is he God because he was made Lord? No. Because there is only one God the Father. Jesus said so himself: Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God,
FROM RESBAK:”Show me a doctrine of the Iglesia Ni cristo which states that Brother Felix Y. Manalo IS THE FOUNDER of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. You won’t find one because it’s not a doctrine of the INC. The Iglesia Ni Cristo doctrine is that founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo or Church of Christ is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.”
Why do you always put that stick? Indeed it is not included in your doctrines BUT THE MAIN FACT is FELIX MANALO FOUNDED INC! If you do not know that,then who on earth is Felix Manalo? You are always AVOIDING the question. Hwag mo naman akong bolahin. Eh iGOOGLE mo pa si FELIX MANALO and the fact is so plain to see.
Jesus Christ is the FOUNDER OF THE TAGALOG INC? Last checked,Pastor Quiboloy and the Protestants are claiming that too. So
And besides you still DID NOT ANSWER ME WHY DO YOUR CHURCH CELEBRATE ON THE 27TH OF JULY OF EVERY YEAR.
You said “Indeed it is not included in your doctrines“. Thank you. That’s all you need.
We don’t base our belief on Google.
It’s an anniversary. In case you’re wondering, an anniversary is a remembrance of a notable event. The notable event is the re emergence of the church built by Christ, the Iglesia Ni Cristo.
FROM RESBAK:”You said “Indeed it is not included in your doctrines“. Thank you. That’s all you need.
We don’t base our belief on Google.
It’s an anniversary. In case you’re wondering, an anniversary is a remembrance of a notable event. The notable event is the re emergence of the church built by Christ, the Iglesia Ni Cristo.”
WOW.What a justification for your belief. That is more like fantasy!
I didn’t say that you have to base your belief in Google.
Are you sure your anniversary is due to a celebration of the re-emergence of the Church? When plainly,its the date when Felix Manalo FOUNDED your church and you are always DENYING THAT FACT!
As you say RE-EMERGENCE. SO WHERE WAS YOUR CHURCH BEFORE IT RE-EMERGE? SO BY LOGIC,YOU HAD NO CONTINUITY FROM THE EARLY CHURCH!
Re-emergence of the Church by Christ? From what? Corruption?
But Jesus promised, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the GATES OF HELL WILL NOT prevail AGAINST IT” (Matt. 16:18).
Clearly your beliefs CONTRADICTS the promise of Jesus to His Church.
You sound frustrated. Why don’t just admit and accept the fact that Bro Felix Y. Manalo did not found a church called Iglesia Ni Cristo? He never said he did, he never taught it and neither did his successors.
Re-emergence because the first century Church of Christ apostatized or turned away from the true faith preached by the Lord Jesus and his Apostles.
The “gates of hell” in the verse means death or grave.
FROM RESBAK:”Why? Because God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ..
Is he God because he was made Lord? No.”
That is a FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION.The title LORD is only applicable to GOD.
The Catholic belief is there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD but yet 3 persons: Father,Son and Spirit!
If you read John 17 first verse, a human Jesus is clearly depicted but when you arrive on verse 5
“Now glorify me, Father, WITH YOU, with the GLORY that I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.” (JOHN 17:5 )
Now how can a human being says “with the GLORY that I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN.”? BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN!
Unless if you understand He is both DIVINE and HUMAN as evidenced in 1 TIMOTHY 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
You said “That is a FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION.The title LORD is only applicable to GOD. ”
If you believe that then you should also believe that Abraham saw, talked to and fed three gods.
?