Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Passover speaks to the death of Christ. Easter speaks to the resurrection of Christ. So, how does Easter obscure the death of Christ when the death is necessary before the resurrection? The Church recognizes the differneces in the two events.bbyrd009 said:
True. Many churches celebrate the Triduum. The Easter Triduum begins with the Vigil of Holy Thursday. It marks the end of the forty days of Lent and the beginning of the three-day celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Easter Vigil/Easter Sunday.. "Christ redeemed us all and gave perfect glory to God principally through his paschal mystery: dying he destroyed our death and rising he restored our life. Therefore the Easter Triduum of the passion and resurrection of Christ is the culmination of the entire liturgical year." (General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, # 18)Stranger said:
[SIZE=12pt]And when he had apprehended him, he put [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]him[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] in prison, and delivered [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]him[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.[/SIZE]bbyrd009 said:
Poor loser!bbyrd009 said:
Well, Christmas and Easter have very little to do with God. What they erroneously try to portray does. Same with church. The Church is God's wife just as much as Woman was Adam's wife.mjrhealth said:
Wedding rings were pagan in origin, dating back before the formation of the Hebrew people. This Protestant site explains it well:FHII said:
Depends on whete rwe are talking of teh one that man "builT or the one that Chirst is building, "Hos one". The yare not one and teh same all teh infighting and differnt doctirines is testimony ot that, "Is Christ Divided"
Oh He surely does but so few will go to Him to find It,,,
I realize that the Roman religious system likes to deny their pagan roots and origins, and do so by trying to subvert the word of God, and by trying to actually re-write history....Dec 25th was celebrated by ancient Babylon 600 years prior to the birth of Jesus...the Babylonians celebrated this day in honour of their sungods...Rome decided to entice early christians into their diabolical religion by in corporating the birth of Jesus in with their pagan celebrations..same goes for easter basically the same story...read Jeremiah 10 and Revelaton 13, 17 and 18 to understand who and what the Roman religious system really is...kepha31 said:Wedding rings were pagan in origin, dating back before the formation of the Hebrew people. This Protestant site explains it well:
http://lifehopeandtruth.com/relationships/marriage/what-is-marriage/history-of-wedding-rings/
But they are not contra-biblical. I was not trying to justify anything but point out the stupidity of false pagan charges, like Christmas and Easter. Celebrating Christ's birth is not pagan. Celebrating the Resurrection is not pagan. The Jews celebrate Yom Kippur or Hanukkah and others according to their calendar. Are they pagan? Wedding rings are not pagan either. It's ignorance or stupidity or both. For example, in 273 AD., the Emperor Aurelius passed a law making Sol Invictus a holiday, which was Dec. 25. None of the sun cults used that date before then. Why did he do it? To detract from the Christians who were already celebrating Christmas on that date. WE HAD IT FIRST.
Anti-church non-denoms and sects ban celebrating certian holidays to justify their bizarre theologies, IMO.
REDEEMER IN THE WOMB
Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.
The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this "pagan influence fallacy." Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic "freethinkers" such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.
The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it...
...all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called "pagan influence fallacies." ...
...Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:
1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source...
2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views. {such as wedding rings)
3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other....
4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?
For example: Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed "neutral" Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.
Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy. (contrary to the psychotic A. Hislop who claims crosses are a satanic symbol)
Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism "pagan" fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.
In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices.
The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan
As usual you provide no evidence for these claims.heretoeternity said:
kepha31 said:
FHII, Can you clarify something fo me please.FHII said:
