Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Easter as a Meaingful Holiday Lays a Colored Egg?
Biblestudy.org ^ | Unknown | Barbara Fenney

Posted on 04/14/2006 6:32:26 PM PDT by DouglasKC

Easter as a meaningful holiday lays a colored egg?

I have been interested in ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian mythology since early teenage. The problem was that the stories became repetitive; each culture had its own versions of the basic legends. No matter into which part of the world I extended my studies, the underlying stories remained the same.

It was only when I came into contact with the true God that I realized these legends all came from a single counterfeit religion originating in ancient Mesopotamia.

In this article I do not intend to cover the Easter controversy, concerning the change from Passover to Easter. This is well documented in encyclopedias, church histories and Sabbatarian literature. I will, however, attempt to explain where some of the current traditions have come from.

The legend

Easter is an ancient festival, involving the death and resurrection of the husband or lover of the Great Earth Mother goddess.

Before I explain the details, it might be useful to list some of the equivalent gods and goddesses involved, since every country and often each city-state within that country had its own form of the same divinities, with local variations.

In most cases the husband is also the son or half-brother of the goddess.

  • Assyria: Semiramis and Ninus.
  • Babylon: Ishtar and Tammuz.
  • Egypt: Isis and Osiris
  • Syria: Astarte and Bel or Baal (Marduk) (later Venus Urania and Adonis).
  • Greece: Aphrodite and Adonis.
  • Rome: Kybele and Attis (or Venus and Adonis).

The actual legend is a bit muddled depending on which version you choose but basically goes like this Egyptian one:

The goddess Isis was married to her brother Osiris. The latter was killed by Set, who sent pieces of his body all over the land of Egypt.

Isis set out on a journey to recover the pieces. Having found them, she spent a night and day casting spells to bring Osiris back to life.

In spite of her great powers, she only partially succeeded but was allowed one last night with her husband, during which she conceived her son Horus.

The following morning at dawn Osiris rose to take his place in the heavens alongside his father, the sun god Ra. Having thus received eternal life, he became ruler of the underworld, judging the dead.

What might appear at first glance a simple and noble love story turns out to be anything but that on closer examination. Based on fact, the original so-called goddess, Semiramis, a woman of dubious parentage but great beauty, became queen of Assyria by marrying King Ninus (one of several men she married).

Later she was accused of being involved with his death.

His resurrection into the heavens was an ideal explanation for the disappearance of his body. Her motives seem to have been purely political, to gain control of the kingdom.

To placate her husband's supporters she declared him to be a god and instituted his worship. However, as the supposed god's wife and claiming celestial parentage herself, she soon became the center of worship, reducing the status of Ninus.

Her lovers, it is claimed, were buried alive all over western Asia, yet she managed to retain her role as a mother goddess.

Ishtar (another supposed incarnation of Semiramis) tried to seduce her own son, Gilgamesh, again to retain power. The picture is really one of seduction, incest and murder.

The time of year

The son of Isis, Horus was claimed to have been born Dec. 25. Forty weeks back from that (an average length of pregnancy) brings us to March 21, the vernal or spring equinox.

It is around this date that the ancient celebrations of the death and resurrection of the pagan gods were claimed to have taken place. It is also now used for the dating of Easter.

Yet God makes no mention of the equinox in relation to the timing of Passover, only of the new moon and the beginning of the spring harvest. Neither can Easter claim to be the time of Christ's conception, His birth coming in the autumn (3312 years before His death in the spring).

Duration of the festival

The length of the festival varied greatly from five days in Rome to 11 in Mesopotamia and included the ancients' New Year's festivals. Some involved a week of fasting and purification before the festival proper began.

As mentioned, the actual rites of Isis lasted one day and two nights. In Byblos the death of Adonis was mourned for two days by Venus Urania before he was resurrected and ascended into heaven, accompanied by great joy. Kybele mourned for Attis for two days before finding him and celebrating throughout the third day.

Christ's only sign of his Messiahship was that He would be in the earth (that is, buried) for three days and three nights (Matthew 12:40). As He stated that there are 12 hours in a day, then night comes (John 11:9-10), so there were 12 hours in a night, giving 24 hours in a day.

Therefore three days and three nights equals 72 hours. This clearly distinguishes Him from any of the other so-called gods of the time. The timing of the resuscitation and resurrection of Osiris exactly mirrors modern-day Easter celebrations.

Easter

The name Easter is the modern form of the Anglo-Saxon Earth Mother goddess Eostre (pronounced eestra.) Her festival was celebrated on or near the vernal (spring ) equinox

I haven't found any proof, but I suspect there is a connection between this name and the word oestrus, from which we get estrogen, the female sex hormone.

The name Eostre appears to be a corruption of Astarte, the mother goddess of the ancient Assyrians, also known as Ishtar. The worship of Astarte and her male counterpart Bel (or Baal) was introduced into Britain by the Druids. One of her titles was Frau or Lady. The date of her festival was March 25, which in some lands still bears the name Lady Day.

The word Easter appears only once in some versions of the Bible but is a mistranslation of the Greek word for Passover.

Lent and Easter eggs

Still associated with Easter and the Easter season is Lent. In Babylon Tammuz, husband of Ishtar, was killed by a wild boar, and 40 days of weeping and fasting was ordained for each of the years of his life.

His wife, Ishtar, visited the underworld and by her grief claimed to have been able to revive him. Often the fast included going without meat, poultry and dairy products, as well as eggs.

The custom of giving something up for Lent remains. Sometimes it is claimed that Lent represents Christ's 40 days of fasting before His ministry began. However, since He began His ministry around age 30 and it lasted 3 1/2 years, His fast must have taken place in the autumn. There is no indication in Scripture of any similar fast before His death.

Eggs are a long-standing symbol of creation, fertility, renewed life and resurrection. They have been used at spring festivals since ancient Egypt and Persia, when eating colored eggs was part of their rituals.

The Syrian goddess Astarte was believed to have been hatched from a huge egg that fell into the Euphrates.

Eggs were considered sacred to her and were not eaten for the period of mourning-which corresponds with Lent-for her husband, Bel. They were all eaten up before this period on what we now call Pancake Day or Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras) and did not appear again until the joyous celebrations of his resurrection, when they appeared in a riot of colors (the Persians dyed theirs red) and became the object of various games. That they should now be made of chocolate is, I suspect, a marketing ploy!

Hot-cross buns

Hot-cross buns are eaten throughout the spring season, but in ancient Babylon the Chaldeans used to offer them to the queen of heaven (Ishtar) on the day now known as Good Friday.

Similar wheat cakes, marked with a cross, were offered to or eaten in honor of Apollo, Diana, Hecate and the moon (the latter also being Diana's symbol).

The cross represents the four seasons, or the four phases of the moon, and are on the sacrificial bread of the lunar goddesses of many cultures. They are found from Egypt to the Aztecs of Mexico. A circle with a cross (the female symbol) was often set up on top of a pillar (representing the male)-the whole representing union or fertility. It is also interesting that the biological symbol for female remains a circle with a cross beneath.

In Jeremiah 7:18; 44:19, 25, the baking and offering of these cakes to the queen of heaven (Ishtar or Astarte) are mentioned as being part of the apostasy of the people of Judah.

Rabbits and hares

A lesser custom, at least in the United Kingdom, is the idea of the Easter Bunny. Rabbits and hares, prolific breeders, have been a symbol of fertility since antiquity. In Teutonic myth it was a hare that supposedly laid the Easter egg. Hares were the sacrificial victims of the goddess Eostre.

Sunrise services

Sunrise services are a tradition in parts of Europe and America, but not in the United Kingdom as a whole. In the North of Scotland it was supposed that the sun would dance on Easter morn for joy that the savior was risen.

The question is, Which savior? As I stated earlier, Christ was to be in the earth three days and three nights. Since He was put in the earth (buried) on a Wednesday at sunset (as a careful reading of a correct translation of Mark 12:1, Luke 23:56 and Matthew 28:1 reveals), He must have been resurrected three days and three nights later at sunset on the end of the weekly Sabbath, at the same time the wave-sheaf was being cut (Leviticus 23:10-11).

This sheaf would be offered to God the following morning. When the women arrived at Christ's tomb towards dawn on Sunday, He was already risen (Mark 16:2-6), but when he met Mary Magdalene a little later in the garden (presumably after sunrise) He had still not ascended to His Father (John 20:17).

Sun worship was one of the earliest religions. In ancient Babylonia the sun was personified as Tammuz, the returning lover of Ishtar. It was at dawn that the Egyptian Osiris rose to join the sun god in the sky. Even today in Britain Druids hold sunrise services on the summer solstice.

Sunrise has long been the traditional time for sun worship, and Ezekiel 8:16 describes such a service. As if to clarify the season, verse 14 tells us that the women were weeping for Tammuz.

We know therefore that these things occurred at the time of the death and resurrection of Tammuz; that is, at what we now call Easter.

Aphrodite in Scripture?

There is a somewhat oblique reference to Earth Mother cults in the New Testament. This is found in 2 Corinthians 6:15, where Paul asks: What agreement has Christ with Belial?

Vine's Expository New Testament gives Belial in this context as being the cult of Aphrodite. Aphrodite was the Greek equivalent of the Syrian Astarte, renowned for being promiscuous herself and the patron of prostitutes.

In Deuteronomy 12:30-32 God warns His followers not to pollute His worship with customs used to worship pagan gods.

This is wholly understandable when it is realized that most pagan celebrations have strong sexual connotations and look to the mother goddess (queen of heaven) as the supreme deity.

Easter specifically also seems to celebrate political corruption, murder and incest.

With this in mind, surely Christians should be careful to avoid being drawn into keeping customs that God has not sanctioned.

Apart from anything else, such customs may take our minds away from the realization of our need for the death and resurrection of Christ and for our reconciliation with God the Father.

Bibliography

  • Classic Ancient Mythology, Patrick and Croft.
  • The Year of the Goddess, Durdin-Robertson.
  • The Silver Bough, Vol. 2, McNeill.
  • The Aquarian Dictionary of Festivals, Cooper.
  • Myth and Mystery, Jack Finnegan.
  • Myths of Assyria and Babylonia, Mackenzie.
  • Myths of Mesopotamia, Dalley.
  • Vine's Expository New Testament.

Written by: Barbara Fenney



TOPICS: General Discusssion; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: easter; eastereggs; eggs; mythology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last
To: DouglasKC
Just to be clear, I said "your church branched off of it" and didn't mean to imply that you were currently a branch of any other church.

I apologize for any confusing I caused there.

101 posted on 04/15/2006 10:04:21 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
If pressed, I would say that I received the gift of service. It's what I prayed for before becoming religious, the heart to help people.

Service is certainly commendable, but it is not a gift which the Bible says is bestowed through the laying on of hands. I have not had the laying on of hands yet still do my best to serve others. My question remains, "What mericalous spiritual gift did you receive?"

102 posted on 04/15/2006 10:05:47 PM PDT by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
Service is certainly commendable, but it is not a gift which the Bible says is bestowed through the laying on of hands. I have not had the laying on of hands yet still do my best to serve others. My question remains, "What mericalous spiritual gift did you receive?"

1Co 12:28 And God placed some in the assembly: firstly, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then works of power; then gifts of healing, helps, governings, kinds of languages.

Helps = Service

103 posted on 04/15/2006 10:09:00 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Have you heard that it was Astrology which guided the Wisemen to the birth of Jesus, because Astrology originally pointed humankind toward the coming of God in flesh? [He is Leo, the Lion of Judah don'tchaknow.]


104 posted on 04/15/2006 10:12:53 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
My church branched off nothing. Please. That's just silly. It was formed by members and directors of the WWCG as a reaction to happenings of the WWCG and your website is full of Armstrong material. To claim no similarity at all is.. well, sorry Doug, silly.

Not silly at all. The only church I belong to is the body of Christ, the church of God. I'm sorry if you're having trouble with this distinction, but my allegience is to Christ alone. The United Church of God has beliefs that closely match my own. That's why I attend services and fellowship there. If their beliefs change, I would leave. And it's not "Armstrong" material. It's material publicized by Armstrong, but it's been around for a long time. If you doubt me, name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.

105 posted on 04/15/2006 10:16:43 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
It's not spun, it's a direct quote. Read the whole thing and see if you don't agree with what the magazine article is correct in its attribution.

It's spun. The article never says we are to become "God, the father".

From the article:

Put together all these scriptures in this booklet, and you begin to grasp the incredible human potential. Our potential is to be born into the God Family, receiving total power! We are to be given jurisdiction over the entire Universe!

Scripture:

Rom 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20 For the creation was not willingly subjected to vanity, but through Him subjecting it, on hope;
Rom 8:21 that also the creation will be freed from the slavery of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that all the creation groans together and travails together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only so, but also we ourselves having the firstfruit of the Spirit, also we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly expecting adoption, the redemption of our body;

From the article snippet you posted, with my commentary:

The WCG belief in a "God Family" has been likened to the Mormon belief that the faithful will one day attain godhood.

Set up expecation by comparing to doctrine that is similar on the surface, but different in effect.

"Our potential," wrote Armstrong, "is to be born into the God Family, receiving total power! We are to be given jurisdiction over the entire universe!. … We shall impart life to billions and billions of dead planets."

Left off quote that shows that "We shall impart life, etc, etc. is speculaton. Actual quote:

What are we going to do then? These scriptures indicate we shall impart life to billions of dead planets, as life has been imparted to this earth.

Now I will agree that a major problem with Worldwide, from what I can gather, is that people took Herbert Armstrong's speculation as gospel and made unofficial doctrine out of it.

106 posted on 04/15/2006 10:21:04 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
1Co 12:28 And God placed some in the assembly: firstly, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then works of power; then gifts of healing, helps, governings, kinds of languages.

The discussion of the gifts of the spirit which come with the laying on of hands is outlined in verses 1-17. Beginning with vs 18 Paul discuses the various positions in the church which different people hold. The gift you refer to is in vs 28 which comes somewhat after the gifts of the Hold Soirit and falls into the catagory of a position in the church. Very commendable but not a Spriitual Gift as enumerated by Paul.

107 posted on 04/15/2006 10:25:45 PM PDT by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
1Co 12:28 And God placed some in the assembly: firstly, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then works of power; then gifts of healing, helps, governings, kinds of languages.
108 posted on 04/15/2006 10:31:06 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

And where does it say that these gifts which made up the first century church came with the laying on of hands. We all have gifts of some kind or the other. But only cetrtain gifts come with the laying on of hands. See Acts 8:14-18. I am not questioning your devotion or your service to your church. But we need to be careful not to confuse our God given abilities with those mircalous gifts that came in the first century as a result of the laying on of an Apostles hands. That is my only point.


109 posted on 04/15/2006 10:44:33 PM PDT by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
The article never says we are to become "God, the father".

Neither did I or the magazine. I dunno where you got that from.

Set up expecation by comparing to doctrine that is similar on the surface, but different in effect.

No trinity, becoming god, ruling a planet - you have to admit is quite similar to what Mormon's teach.

people took Herbert Armstrong's speculation as gospel

Um, speculation? From an article he begins:

It's positively astounding! It has remained undiscovered by science. Higher education has never taught it. And organized religion has withheld it. How? By suppressing the real gospel message Christ brought from heaven that reveals the awesome purpose of human life.
And I know you were talking about the planet bit, but that's a detail of the whole tapestry of what Armstrong claims is THE Gospel of Jesus.

And I've been reading your current belief statement. "The God Family" etc is still pretty solidly Armstrong; though I didn't see any planet mentioned.

I've read Armstrong and the UCG version. They look to me to be of the same basic stuff.

name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.

Am I understanding you now to be distancing the UCG from Armstrong? I honestly don't get your point here. Would it be a bad thing in your view if UCG's beliefs were the same as Herbert Armstrong?

Or are you saying that Armstrong had the same beliefs as Jesus, or knew Jesus's true message? Something like that? And objecting to my attributing your theology to him instead of "scripture"?

Is this what you mean?

110 posted on 04/15/2006 10:48:15 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
The only church I belong to is the body of Christ, the church of God. I'm sorry if you're having trouble with this distinction, but my allegience is to Christ alone. The United Church of God has beliefs that closely match my own. That's why I attend services and fellowship there. If their beliefs change, I would leave.

I understand you can/will leave. This started about whether Armstrong was the founder of your church, or the founder of the church your church branched off from.

From the UCG website:

Many of the current ministers and members of the United Church of God were once members of the Worldwide Church of God, a nonprofit corporation under the leadership of Herbert W. Armstrong until his death in 1986. A subsequent unwarranted shift toward nonbiblical practices and beliefs led numerous ministers and members to leave the fellowship of that organization.
So, this is what I meant. I'll rephrase it: The church you currently attend has many current ministers and members who were members of the WWCG which was led by Herbert W. Armstrong.
111 posted on 04/15/2006 11:06:43 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Set up expecation by comparing to doctrine that is similar on the surface, but different in effect.
No trinity, becoming god, ruling a planet - you have to admit is quite similar to what Mormon's teach.

You have to admit that believing you're eating the real flesh of Christ and drinking his real blood is quite similar to what cannibals do. You have to admit that believing that the pope is God on earth is similar is quite similar to believing that Jim Jones thought he was God on earth.

name one doctrine on United's website that you think was created by Herbert Armstrong and I'll cite proof of it's existence before Armstrong.
Am I understanding you now to be distancing the UCG from Armstrong? I honestly don't get your point here. Would it be a bad thing in your view if UCG's beliefs were the same as Herbert Armstrong?
Or are you saying that Armstrong had the same beliefs as Jesus, or knew Jesus's true message? Something like that? And objecting to my attributing your theology to him instead of "scripture"?

That's pretty much it. You're not so subtly attempting to destroy the theology by avoiding scripture and focusing on Armstrong's commentary and speculation on scripture. You're then putting your spin on his comments. It's akin to me looking up comments from popes or bisops and then making the claim that what you believe is represented by my interpretation of what they say.

The theology that I believe is biblical and stands with or without Armstrong.

112 posted on 04/15/2006 11:17:34 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Many of the current ministers and members of the United to leave the fellowship of that organization. So, this is what I meant. I'll rephrase it: The church you currently attend has many current ministers and members who were members of the WWCG which was led by Herbert W. Armstrong.

I said this waaay back in post 44. Are you reading my replies at all?

113 posted on 04/15/2006 11:19:57 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
And where does it say that these gifts which made up the first century church came with the laying on of hands.

Gifts come from God when he gives us his holy spirit, which comes from the laying on of hands. They are "gifts of the spirit", not "gifts from laying on your hands".

114 posted on 04/15/2006 11:22:26 PM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
You're not so subtly attempting to destroy the theology by avoiding scripture and focusing on Armstrong's commentary and speculation on scripture.

Well that is it. That's the theology of the WWWCG, ETCOG, UCG.. Armstrong's commentary and view of scripture and history. To you there's no or little difference, re:

"I think he popularized biblical truths that had been buried by culture and society. I believe that many sects of Christianity have bits and pieces of truth, but he studied the bible and put these bits and pieces together into a comprehensive teaching that most closely expounds the biblical truth God wishes to convey. It could have been anyone, but God chose to use him to spread the truth."
So I don't think it's unfair since to you, they are the same. I disagree, I think your interpretation is polytheism, but we could play dueling scripture, but scripture isn't the issue between us; it's interpretation.

And note also that for the discussion on Christology I quoted from your church's website.

So, I'm not being unfair, unless Armstrong's views are held to be in error compared with yours and the UCG, which I don't think either of you are saying.

115 posted on 04/15/2006 11:27:50 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I said this waaay back in post 44.

But in 105 you were objecting to the UCG branching off of WWCG. I'm just trying to correct the point to be accurate.

It seems one minute, Armstrong is God's messenger and the next you want nothing to do with him.

That's why we went back and forth on this exercise.

116 posted on 04/15/2006 11:35:02 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
So I don't think it's unfair since to you, they are the same. I disagree, I think your interpretation is polytheism, but we could play dueling scripture, but scripture isn't the issue between us; it's interpretation.

You're wrong, scripture is the issue and our conversation has included little, if any of it. You've avoided any specific analysis of passages and prefer instead to put your own intepretation without benefit of debate on actual scripture. This is exactly why I don't usually engage Catholics. Generally, you see no need for scripture since you believe that your church has the authority to override scripture on any subject. I hold scripture as the bottom line, you don't.

And note also that for the discussion on Christology I quoted from your church's website.
So, I'm not being unfair, unless Armstrong's views are held to be in error compared with yours and the UCG, which I don't think either of you are saying.

I don't think Armstrong is wrong on most points. But I think your interpretation and spin void of scriptural debate is flawed. I'll show you what you're doing and maybe you'll see what I mean.

According the heading infallability in the Catholic encyclopedia, the pope could say ex cathedra that having sex with babies is perfectly moral and acceptable in the eyes of God and he would be right in your eyes. Why do you believe the pope has the power to make sex with babies morally acceptable?

117 posted on 04/16/2006 12:05:54 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
But in 105 you were objecting to the UCG branching off of WWCG. I'm just trying to correct the point to be accurate.

Nope, you used the phrase "your church". I can't help it that you don't understand the concept of "church", or don't use it the same way I do. The "church" is the called out body of believers in Christ. It passes all corporate and denominational lines. You apparently have a tough time understanding this concept.

It seems one minute, Armstrong is God's messenger and the next you want nothing to do with him. That's why we went back and forth on this exercise.

No we went back and forth because you can't argue scripture so you focus on other things.

118 posted on 04/16/2006 12:11:10 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
Nope, you used the phrase "your church"

Yeah I did. Sometimes considered the same as a religious organization that you "fellowship with and attend services with." I assumed that would be the same as your church. My apologies.

No we went back and forth because you can't argue scripture so you focus on other things.

I don't know that we have different scriptures. From the articles I read at your.. religious organization that you "fellowship with and attend services with" it is obvious one can look at the same canon and come up with considerably different views on Christ, God, worship and man.

Now I can post the scripture of Christ saying he and the Father are One, and you can post scripture of Christ saying "Our Father Who art in heaven..." and we can go on and on with dueling scriptures from there.

I know you've had this exercise before on the Neverending Thread.

Same canon, different scriptures - or even the same scriptures quoted - and quite different Christologies and Theologies.

And if scripture were obviously the same in meaning to all then what is the purpose of the document "Fundamental Beliefs" that you pointed me to.

So what we are dealing with is interpretation. It can't be avoided. We must of course back up our interpretation with scripture - which we both can do - for pages and pages with footnotes.

Now, what I would maintain, scripturally, is that polytheism, or any interpretation that leads to it, is contrary to scripture.

This is what I was engaging you in earlier.

If your interpretation, your "Fundamental Beliefs" of the religious organization that you fellowship with and attend services with, leads to or interprets scripture to mean more than one God, then that is in error.

So we can argue scripture all day, but if this is where you end up, somewhere, somehow, someone has made a wrong turn.

119 posted on 04/16/2006 12:51:22 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
I'll show you what you're doing and maybe you'll see what I mean. According the heading infallability…

Doug, I don't think I've done anything like what you're saying. I think I am being accurate in quoting and linking to Armstrong and the Fundamental Beliefs.

I think they do emphasize, or at least point to, more than one God - the UCG section specifically emphasizes the "distinction" and plural form used for God. I've read the God Family article on the UCG site and several others and I've read the Armstrong articles I linked to and several others. They are consistent. The UCG articles parallel the Armstrong topics even.

And your reply comparing them to a "married couple" follows the same thought.

I really don't see where I'm spinning the position. I really do not. Help me out with it.

120 posted on 04/16/2006 1:04:42 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson