Posted on 10/22/2002 5:11:40 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood
Wow...sorry I didn't even know there was such a day.
I'm sorry if American have secularized holy days into pagan holidays. This is the fruit of Calvanism: That claims any frivolity is evil. This idea goes way back to Gnosticism, if you know your bible studies, which is the idea that anything of the human body is evil, and only the spirit is good.
The days that God ordained as holy are listed in the bible. These are the days I was referring to that have been replaced by society.
As for Christ dressing up for a 'pagan ceremony': isn't there a parable about a guy thrown out from a wedding feast because he didn't wear the right wedding garment? Wasn't Christ criticized for eating and drinking with sinners? Wasn't his first miracle performed at a wedding feast-- and Near Eastern weddings were pretty rambunctious.
Weddings were ordained by God in the begining with Adam and Eve so they are a biblical rite. My example was meant to show that Christ wouldn't participate in a pagan holiday over His own holy days.
As for holy days, didn't Paul instruct people not to argue about which days to celebrate the Lord?
No, although I don't doubt that many people read that into his words. He was actually referring to days that the Jews traditionally fasted on and how fasting on certain days didn't make one holier than those who didn't.
Here's the passage in question. If you read the chapter Paul is obviously talking about eating and drinking practices because that's the focus of the chapter. Paul isn't referring to holy days. If he was he would use the word:
heorte
Of uncertain affinity; a festival: - feast, holyday.
which in the new testament always refers to God's holy days. Instead he uses the word "hemera" which means a regular day.
So again in context Paul is talking specifically about how fasting on one day or another doesn't really matter. He's not making a general statement that says God doesn't care whether or not we celebrate pagan holidays.
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? The Jewish synod of rabbinical authority will deny that Satan even exists. This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...
Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Now, since you are so well educated on such matters, perhaps you can lend a literary criticism to the etymology of our language and culture instead of the ad hominems...Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy...
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? The Jewish synod of rabbinical authority will deny that Satan even exists. This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...
Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
But most Christians don't celebrate passover, or the other holy days God ordained in the Bible. That was my point. Haloween is short for "all hallows eve" which in modern English is "the eve of all saints day". All Saints day is a feast in Catholic countries, reminding us that all good Christians who die in the Lord are saints.
The next day, all souls day, is the day you visit the graves of your loved ones. In Mexico, it is called the day of the dead.
If you follow the rules of Judism, then you can argue Haloween is pagan. But historically it is not. It coresponds to a Wiccan holiday, but there is a real questio if it was truly a "pagan" holiday. (much of Wicca is modern and made up, not scientifically accurate as a religion)
And the majority of Christians for the last two thousand years have happily celebrated "pagan" feasts without qualms, because Christianity took the "good" in the feast and baptised it to teach us how to follow the Lord.
So instead of witchcraft and satanism, Haloween was baptised into recognizing that good conquers evil, that the devil hates to be laughed at, and that death is not the end of life, and that our loved dead will meet us in the next world.
Your argument about paganism is true ONLY because "puritans" who follow legalistic Christianity prefer to shun holidays, allowing a moral vacuum to be filled with occultish practices instead of Christian practices, and you will affirm the Wiccan claims, and allow the day to be used to promote the modern religion of Wicca.
We need to take back this very Christian holiday, not leave it to the satanists...
<> It has been a LONG time since I asked you to source this in the Bible.
When you do, I'll give you a cookie, as a treat<>
119 posted on 10/25/2002 7:20 AM EDT by Catholicguy
<> ...still waiting....<>
You do get to the real meat of the issue when you say:
But most Christians don't celebrate passover, or the other holy days God ordained in the Bible.What I am asking here in this thread is - - why not? Judaism is the basis of Christianity.
I will agree that Wicca is a cult of the psychotic...
Controversy over the origin of the word witch is valid when one considers the etymology of the term in other languages: venifica (Latin), hexe (German), streghe (Italian), etc. Only in it's English form has the word assumed a benign origin: wicca, purportedly meaning "wise."Any debate must center on recent claims that advance a positive and socially acceptable meaning for a term that has in all ages and most languages meant "poisoner," "frightener," "enchanter," "spell-caster," or "evil woman."
Anthropologists have shown that even in primitive societies, notably the Azande, the definition of witch carries malevolent connotations. Therefore, are we to assume that the only "good" witches in the world were English witches? This, however, becomes difficult to accept when one considers the term wizard, which stems from the Middle English wysard = wise, versus the Old English wican = to bend, from whence witch is supposedly derived. All in all, it seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to legitimize a word that probably originated by onomatopoeia - the formation of a word that sounds like what it is intended to mean!
My contention is that like the term wicca, Halloween is another phantasm analagous to this very same idolatry...
Since you bring it up, from time to time I have gotten young LDS adults visit me. I am always welcoming and cordial. I love talking to people. Once there were three young ladies. Very pretty. I considered conversion. Although ten years their senior, it would be absolute bliss having such beautiful, radiant wives who are so intelligent and articulate bearing my children. ;^)
"Morals" are a deceptive replacement for the "avoidance of sin." "Morals" are a human invention. Conviction of the Holy Spirit is of God, not of man...
It has been a LONG time since I asked you to source this in the Bible.
The reference is Ezekiel 28. The description of the "King of Tyre" is taken to be a description of Lucifer due to the Eden reference and the parallel to Isaiah 14's description of the fall of Lucifer.167 posted on 10/27/2002 3:45 AM PST by drstevej
Thank-you drstevej... I knew it was in there somewhere.
Agreed but it's a tough row to hoe convincing people of that. Most people today are comfortable with popular culture and customs no matter how debased they are.
It's my belief that this is a major problem. Originally God personally ordained holy days to be observed by his people. In the years after Christ's death these days were phased out by Christianity and new days were added. New days were then combined with pagan days in order to "convert" as many pagans as possible.
The process is called synectism. From the link: "Syncretism is the process by which elements of one religion are assimilated into another religion resulting in a change in the fundamental tenets or nature of those religions."
Satan has made pagan holidays more important than God's holy days by first replacing God's days with man's day...and then replacing man's days with his days.
I don't think this works. No matter what you call it this day is still being honored by marking it as an occassion.
Economically Christians are still buying candy, supplies, apples, etc and giving manufacturers incentive to keep producing merchandise.
Culturally non-Christians see churches holding events on that night and figure if it's okay for churches to have a "fall feast" (or whatever they're calling them today) on that night then it's okay for them to go trick or treating.
A more effective method would be to stop celebrating it all together. If every Christian stopped partcipating the finacial effects would be felt very quickly and the cultural effects wouldn't be far behind.
Are you sure you're an atheist??
<>It has been a LONG time since I asked you to source this in the Bible.<> The reference is Ezekiel 28. The description of the "King of Tyre" is taken to be a description of Lucifer due to the Eden reference and the parallel to Isaiah 14's description of the fall of Lucifer.
167 posted on 10/27/2002 3:45 AM PST by drstevej
Thank-you drstevej... I knew it was in there somewhere.
<> drstevej is wrong, sorry Sir F. As the Douai notes "The King of Tyre, by his dignity and his natural perfections, bore in himself a certain resemblance to God by reason of which might be called the seal of reseemblace, & ect. But what is here said to him is commonly said of Lucifer, the king over all the children of pride. A seal is perfect when it represents things exactly. The prophet speaks ironically, to repress the King's vanity>
Sorry, both of you. Care to try again:)<>
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.