She told the Emperor about Christ’s Resurrection and gave him an egg…

Big Bureaucracy ^ | April 3rd, 2010 | Ellie Velinska

[Big Bureaucracy]

The legend says Mary Magdalene visited the Emperor Tiberius (14-37 AD) and told him the story about Christ’s Resurrection. She gave the Emperor a present: a simple egg as a symbol of new life. Tiberius responded that no one could rise from the dead, anymore than the egg could turn red. Then miracle happened! The egg turned red as testimony to Mary’s words. Tiberius had Pilate removed from Jerusalem to Gaul, where he later suffered a horrible sickness and an agonizing death... through the years some celebrate the egg more and more and the story less and less. The egg got new colors – yellow, green and pink. The egg was carved in wood and gold and molded from plastic, covered in chocolate and filled with toys. The egg got hidden, hunted and rolled, arranged in baskets. Then the Easter Bunny joined the show and the Easter Lamb and the Easter Chicken and the chocolate bunny and the marshmallow Peeps.

What was the egg story again? They say it is about the Spring Holiday. Really?

Actually it is about a woman who was brave enough to stand up to the Emperor and Declare: “Christ is Risen!” and a miracle helped her for her courage in delivering the message.

Today we can’t stand up even to a school principle to proclaim “Christ is Risen!”. We don’t want to be called religious zealots. We just stuff some plastic eggs with candy and release the kids to hunt them.

Tomorrow, when your children are chewing the chocolate bunny tell them the story about Christ’s Resurrection. It is one that is worth telling. Be the messenger and may be a miracle will come your way too.

[dangus]

By the way, for those keeping track

Easter attribute	Origin	tradition
The Name Easter	Secular, with false accusations of being Pagan	Protestant
The Name, "Pascha"	Biblical	Catholic & Orthodox
Easter Bunny	Pagan	Protestant
Easter Lamb	Biblical	Catholic & Orthodox
Easter Eggs	Christian legend	Catholic & Orthodox
Easter Gifts	Secular	Protestant
Easter Lillies	Christian legend	Catholic

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

So wait a second: If I tell you about the faith of our patriotic fathers, like George Washington, I have to preface it by telling you it’s merely a fable? I mean, sure, it’s not biblical, but we all know that. That doesn’t mean it’s inherently false.

There's a key difference here, in what you are bringing up and what we were discussing. And it has to do with "context" ... you see...

In your example, you would have been talking in a context (and I presume this) in which you would have made it already clear that you were talking about history and something factual. We're used to talking in that "mode" already -- even in secular society.

We talk about a "historical event" in our nation's history and if we are pressed about it, we can supply supporting documentation. Most of the time, it's familiar, we've heard it many times before and we all know the proper context for the story.

On the other hand -- when you're in the context of things having to do with the Bible -- you're dealing in a completely different context.

Let me make clear the context to you, so you understand what this context is. We're talking about ...

1. dead people coming back to life after being dead for days or months, or even years,
   
   
2. there are blind people who are instantly seeing again,
   
   
3. there are lame people, some crippled for decades from birth, just getting up and walking around to the amazement of people seeing this,
   
   
4. we're talking about thousands of people being fed from a mere few fish and loaves of bread,
   
   
5. we're talking about someone walking across a big body of water, on top of big storm waves and not sinking down,
   
   
6. we're even talking about big bodies of water, splittlng apart with walls of water on the left and right side, for a couple of million people to pass through on the dry bottom,
   
   
7. we're talking about a big stream of water instantly coming out of a rock, from someone hitting it with a staff in their hands, a big enough stream to satisfy the needs of a couple of million people at one time,
   
   
8. we're talking about the sun actually traveling backwards in the sky for a time, and also being stopped from even moving across the sky for many hours at one time,
   
   
9. we're talking about having 500 people watch a man being taken up into the sky, very slowly, and into the clouds and out of sight.
   
   
10. AND..., I haven't even mentioned yet (but will now) -- we're talking about this person who comes here to earth and He's the one who created the entire universe and He existed before there was even such a thing as "time" or "space" or "matter" or anything that exists now or has ever existed in our space-time frame of reference.

SO..., do you see the "difference in context' here? I hope so, because if you dont then you've got some trouble in understanding things, I would say... LOL ...

AND SO..., given this particular "difference in context" -- when talking about George Washington and the history of our country (of a mere couple hundred years plus...) -- versus -- the entirety of creation being entirely made in a mere 6 days, spanning 24 hours each -- yeah, it pays to make that kind of distinction... doncha know...

That's because it's only the Bible, itself, which is inerrant and infallible and is perfect in all that it says, speaks about, and tells any information about -- totally and without exception, in all matters, whether dealing with history or science or biology or anthropology or cosmology -- when it addresses an issue, whatever that issue is.

When someone else comes along (a supposed adherent to this same Bible and its teachings) and they say, "An egg turned red" -- yes, then I would say, they better make clear that they are not talking about the Bible in which the sea parted, in which someone walks on water, in which the dead come back to life in front of hundreds of witnesses -- they certainly better say...

"I'm telling you a fable right now and this is not even remotely in the same category of what the Bible says!"

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Does this mean Protestants are pagan? No, but it means it's nonsense assaulting Catholic practices as if they're secretly un-Christian

Ummmm..., I'm not sure, but was someone assaulting Catholic doctrine here? [now, they may need some "assaulting", in one thing or another, but I didn't realize it was being done here... doncha know... :-)].

I would say that there is a big difference between discussing doctrine, using the authoritative, inerrant and infallible Word of God, in discussing the "pros and cons" of whatever doctrine may be discussed -- and whether it's supported or not supported by this sole foundation for Christianity, the Bible as the Word of God.

Let's put it another way... there are thousands and thousands of books out there in all sorts of Christian denominations, which are not authoritative in and of themselves and present ideas which may need "disqualifying" on the basis of what the Bible, itself says. OR..., these things that some books are saying (and/or teachers, professors, preachers, etc.) may be "confirmed" by what the Word of God says.

To do so, to make a disctinction that these books are merely opinions and that they need to be "backed up" by what the Bible says -- is not something extra-ordinary or spectacular to do -- it's very ordinary and Christians should do that all the time.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Yes, it is quite difficult to discern between true history and mere legend.

If it's in the Bible -- it's not. If God put it in the Bible (and "that means" -- if you "see it there", in order to define this for you), then there's no question about it -- it's not a fable. It's 100% accurate.

Now..., if you're talking about some other assertion from history or another ancient writing, then you've got a legitimate question about it.

[Nosterrex]

I am NOT questioning the Bible. My skepticism of the factual accounts of Christian tradition, such as the Easter egg account, was the context of which I was speaking. Some accounts are more reliable than others. Some are pure fiction, but they are always interesting.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

My skepticism of the factual accounts of Christian tradition, such as the Easter egg account, was the context of which I was speaking.

Yes, indeed... I can understand that.

[dangus]

You’re writing yourself in circles. You believe it’s a mere fable because of it’s context, which you ascribe to being not historical because you say it’s a fable. It boils down to the fact that you readily accept the secularist history you learn in secularist schools, but you inherently reject Catholic-Orthodox-Early Christian history because “it’s not in the bible.”

Now, it’s fine if you prefer more recent, secularist history to ancient Christian history: it’s a little easier given that ancient Christian history is longer ago, and in lands now hostile to its own Christian heritage. But don’t wrap it in nonsense about being “non-biblical,” because nothing else you believe about history is biblical, either.

>> They certainly better say...”I’m telling you a fable right now and this is not even remotely in the same category of what the Bible says!” <<

They certainly better say that? Who appointed you God-Emperor of Earth to make such absurd assertions? The fact they call it legend makes it plain it’s not biblical. Who says it’s a mere fable? Your intellectual masters who hate God, hate Christ’s church and latey hate the bedrock of Western Civilizations? Do you always echo the pronouncements of your overlords so blindly, or do you ever want to think about what you’re saying. Or do you hear yourself?

“I’ll believe it if it’s godless, agnostic or secularist history, but if it promotes a belief in miracles and the continuing action of God in human history, why, they’d better not dare say anything about it without first assuring us all it’s merely a fable!!!”

[Big Bureaucracy]

Looks like the story is well accepted by the Eastern Orthodox church, but not from the Catholic church.
This year the East and West celebrate Easter on the same day, so let’s have a Happy Easter together :)

http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9509&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_

[dangus]

Close, but not exactly.

Eggs are part of the passover ritual. So, yes, we can reasonably presume Jesus and his disciples ate eggs on Holy Thursday, because he ate the “passover meal,” which includes eggs. Easter is the new passover. In Catholic lands, and in the Catholic mass, Easter is referred to as passover, in fact, because we are delivered from death just as the Jews were delivered from Egypt.

The funny thing is that German hares often invaded the nests of plovers. So Europeans would often find eggs and rabbits in the same nests, and made the somewhat silly presumption that the eggs were the rabbits’. (Keep in mind, that the presence of the rabbits meant that the eggs would never develop into birds, so the Germans weren’t being quite as inobservant as they sound.) Most bird eggs are found in trees or heights; contrarily the “rabbit eggs” were typically convenient for humans to take, so it was as if the rabbits brought the eggs.

Personal note: I’m not convinced the Germans actually believed the eggs were rabbit eggs. It’s not unbelievable; scientists once “proved” that wheat became mice. But I’m not sure that at some level the part about the rabbits “bringing” the eggs precisely represented a knowledge that the eggs were NOT the rabbits’.

Alternate explanation: It was a common practice to put a cross after the name of a saint or priest. “Rabbi” is not used in the gospel except in reference to Jesus. Some commonfolk misread, “Rabbi+, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

No, I’m kidding about that last part.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

You’re writing yourself in circles.

Naahhh..., it just your head spinning... doncha know ... :-)

---

It boils down to the fact that you readily accept the secularist history you learn in secularist schools, but you inherently reject Catholic-Orthodox-Early Christian history because “it’s not in the bible.”

It boils down to the Bible is authoritative, inerrant and infallible, but other writings are not. It's not that hard to understand... :-)

---

But don’t wrap it in nonsense about being “non-biblical,” because nothing else you believe about history is biblical, either.

Ummmm..., it's a simple concept... if it's not in the Bible, then it doesn't carry the authority of the Word of God and it's not inerrant and/or infallible.

I really don't know what the problem is... in understanding that.

---

They certainly better say that? Who appointed you God-Emperor of Earth to make such absurd assertions?

Well, it's certainly not me who wants to be Pope, or Obama or anything like that ... LOL...

But, the fact that the Bible is inerrant and infallible is not a hard concept to understand. It certainly wasn't started by me, as the originator of it. It's something that has been accepted by all who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, from the Jews through the Christians.

If you want to read up on it from some recent discussions and others who have gone into this, about the Bible being authoritative, inerrant and infallble... you can read the following ...

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html

This is a subject that has been discussed and gone into by far greater minds that I've seen around in these parts (on this board) ... :-)

---

“I’ll believe it if it’s godless, agnostic or secularist history, but if it promotes a belief in miracles and the continuing action of God in human history, why, they’d better not dare say anything about it without first assuring us all it’s merely a fable!!!”

I think you've got it backwards... LOL ... (but you do seem to have a bit of a problem comprehending, it seems...) :-)

I don't automatically believe or disbelieve anything that is from standard secular sources, or from so-called religious sources. Anything like that has to be verified and examined to see if it can be backed up.

But, the Bible, itself, is not in that category, and thus, anything that it says is authoritative, inerrant and infallible (and you can look at some others' examination of that subject, up above, in those links I gave you).

That only follows naturally, anyway, since the Bible is the Word of God and it's His revelation to mankind. What do you expect from God... but the inerrant and infallible truth of the matter.

And what else do you expect from sinful mankind, sinful from the time of the Garden of Eden, except false statement and myths and fables and lies..., that's just to be expected.

That's why we always ask for verification and sources for information that is supplied on this board. We already know people tend to "hoax" others... it's been the same throughout history, people with sinful natures engaging in private or group agendas, creating myths and legends for their own purposes. There's nothing surprising about that.

[Big Bureaucracy]

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSM=7&FSD=22
http://www.jerusalem-mission.org/convent_magdalene.html

[grey_whiskers]

Don't forget the song.

Cheers!

[dangus]

You don’t need to explain the inerrancy of the bible to me. I’m a member of the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ, led by his appointed line of successors to this very day, which recorded the bible, and which doesn’t explain away all the hard sayings (such as “Unless you eat of my flesh, you shall not have life within you”) by asserting they were merely metaphors.

What’s silly is the notion that sola scriptura, a self-contradicting doctrine, since the bible plainly refutes it, can be used to discredit all ancient Christian historical not explicitly stated in the bible, while you readily accept all sorts of historical assertions, provided that they do not glorify God through revealing his wondrous works.

[Anti-Utopian]

You mean like the Book of Mormon? Or the Koran? Because I don’t read that extra-Biblical nonsense either.

[Steelfish]

Oh no, not the nonsensical Koran, Book of Mormon, or the mythical Hindu Gita. But all early legends have some aspect of validity.

[donmeaker]

Your G-d certainly handles the miraculous redemption of homosexual priests well.

[donmeaker]

So you are a Jew?

[dangus]

What does my bloodline have to do with it? My Church was founded by a divine Jew, and propagated by holy Jews (not a promiscuous, murderous Brit, or a genocidal, Muslim-abetting Bavarian or a seditious Frenchman), but no, ironically my bloodline comes chiefly from Gaul, Brittania, and Bavaria, and not Judea.

[pgyanke]

You’re simply showing how enslaved you’ve become to mainstream propaganda. May God bless you.