J
Jerry_Heil
Guest
Who are these scholars? Can we have some names and citations to their work?
"Scholars have found that over 75% of rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin..."
- Status
V
Vigis
Guest
First of all, why should I do the research? It is Your responisbility to back up Your argument, not mine.
Secondly, your arguement for April being the real month when Christ was born is faulty. In post number 25 someone has backed-up the arguement that Christ was born in December, and not only that, but somewhere around the 25th. using Biblical proof. If you can please post a counter-arguement that would prove otherwise.
Thirdly, your assumption that the Catholic Church (to which you imply) forcefully converted people on a mass scale is wrong. If that were to bear any merit then Hungary would have converted from its pagan beliefs much earlier than it did.
Also, I stand by my statement that the date is quite trivial. Many churches celebrate it on different dates as far as I know. All I am sure of is that God cares that we celebrate the fact that He was born into this world.
One more thing, point out to me where the date of December 25th as a celebration of Christ’s birth goes against Christ’s teachings.
Go with God.
Vigis
E
Elric
Guest
Why should you do the research?
Because you want to know the truth perhaps (no matter which way it falls), because you want to see if there is any truth to what I have said, because you are not afraid of finding out if you were taught the right thing or not, because that is what Christians are meant to do (ask questions), because you want to, it might be interesting.
Pick one and go with it.
Frankly I dont have any responsibility to back up any argument, because I didnt really make one in the first place (I was actually responding to someones flippant remarks about a particular time in history and suggesting that they read up on the part of history that they being so flippant about). It really makes no difference to me what you choose to believe, Im just saying that there may be more to it than you thought.
Didnt they say that Luke stated this in his gospel?
Now tell me, was that written before or after the church changed the calander? (I think that you will find that it was before the calander was changed, which would on its own make it inaccurate)
I just had a look through the Gospel of Luke and cant find a mention of a month or day, I might be an idea to find out what particular verse that poster had in mind.
I use the term “The Church” generically, since each one believes in the same God and the same Christ (and have equally done terrible things). But I guess in this instance it would be the cathloic church I am refering to as it was pretty much the paramount church of the time.
But to get to what you were saying, bringing Hungary into the issue does nothing to void any argument of forceful conversions. Maybe they resisted longer than other cultures and their resistance was stronger, or maybe when it was time to convert the people in Hungary they decided to use less violent methods.
Mate how can you stand by something that you dont believes exists?
You dont believe that there is any contest over the date, so why the necessesity of the statment?
On your other point, I cant point out that celebrating Christs birth is wrong (I cant actually point out that we should celebrate his birth at all). As to the 25/12 issue, you have already stated that you dont believe its wrong. So even me saying that it is disrespecting the Father (as part of the Trinity) because man changed the date wouldnt matter, me saying that being decietful to others (lying) or damning people (he who is without sin) or even murder wouldnt matter. Because you dont believe this to be the case.
You dont see anything wrong, so how exactly can I point anything out?
R
revmarty
Guest
I found this It might help to answer questions,
Question: “What is the origin of the Catholic Church?”
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
Question: “What is the origin of the Catholic Church?”
Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately 30 A.D. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the Church that Jesus Christ died for, the Church that was established and built by the Apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus, or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship / adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?
For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity at the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called together the Council of Nicea, in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.
Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse – not everyone would agree to forsake their religious beliefs and instead embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:
gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html
R
revmarty
Guest
Continued from page one:
What is the origin of the Catholic Church?
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
more to come this is a big comment page 3 coming
What is the origin of the Catholic Church?
(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and “theotokos” (God-bearer) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.
(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman empire, it was the de-facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in concept of the Lord’s Supper / Christian Communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the Biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass / Eucharist, complete.
(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primary on one particular god, or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.
(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine, and his successors, gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course it is best for the unity of the Roman empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus.
Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
more to come this is a big comment page 3 coming
R
revmarty
Guest
The origin of the Catholic Church
last page but a great read, you must agree
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Thank you Marty
last page but a great read, you must agree
The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the Gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”
Thank you Marty
H
Hunho
Guest
Let’s look at this the other way around. All of pagan beliefs and rites are foreshadowings of the beliefs and rites that God has finally clearly stated through scripture and the Church. In the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul is quite clear that " … what can be known about God is plain to them , because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and diety, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles." (Romans 1:19-23) Obviously, men create rituals and rites when “claiming to be wise, they became fools” and it is hardly surprising that they sometimes got close to the truth. But they still missed the truth and are still pagans.
I
I_Leatherman
Guest
But you forgot about the shamrock Marty -
The Truth Behind The Shamrock
“…the druids in Ireland looked at the shamrock as a sacred plant because its leaves formed a triad. Three was a mystical number in the Celtic religion. …”
K
KofC660
Guest
Hey Reverend Marty, I dare you to tell that story to an Irishman on a Sunday afternoon in the pub. I would suggest that if you wear glasses you would take them off before talking to him. Oh yeah, wear a mouthpiece as well…
Z
Zooey
Guest
Oh,
must I??? But, you see, I http://bestsmileys.com/nono/4.gifdon’t agree , actually.Oh, my…http://bestsmileys.com/yawning/2.gifSame-old,http://bestsmileys.com/yawning/2.gif same-old…http://bestsmileys.com/sleeping/17.gif
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Revmarty,
Do you have a PHD at the Institute of Jack Chick, or are you still an under-grad?
Do you have a PHD at the Institute of Jack Chick, or are you still an under-grad?
C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
Hello RevM!
Code:
Welcome to the forum! Be careful with your argument here, a cursory reading of the new testament will reveal to you that there is not mention of the word Trinity, the dogma of sola scripturae (As protestants understand it), or the limit of the bible to just 66 books. There are never examples of altar calls, Jesus never talks against abortion. You could get burned with this sort of logic.
Much stuff to discuss in your post. Pick just one and we can discuss in detail.A Catholic Deacon
G
Gamera
Guest
Wow, you were right, that WAS a great read. I just love science fiction.
Let’s go right to the heart of your thesis.
I’ve given the Bible much more than a “cursory reading” (my wife and I read one chapter together every night) and I find it supports every last one of those beliefs, except of course “worship of Mary” which is not a Catholic belief. Each topic has enough Scriptural support that it deserves its own thread, and I’d be glad to discuss with you the Biblical support for each one in separate posts. Which one shall we start with?
E
Elric
Guest
If you wouldnt mind, I would like it if you could start with petitioning saints in Heaven for their prayers. Basically just to get the ball rolling, but also because I would like to hear your opinion about the subject.
I hope you dont mind me butting in, Im just interested.
G
Gamera
Guest
Sure thing. Let’s open a separate thread so as not to hijack this one. And when RevMarty chooses whichever topic he’d like to address first, we can open a separate thread for that one, too.
Z
Zooey
Guest
[SIGN]
“In a related development, scholars have recently determined that 99.99999% of the 12 Apostles had hair & teeth, and that this is the exact same percentage as the Populace of Wales.
Speaking as the Official Representative of Wales,
Lady Zooey of Monty Trogs has petitioned for an official declaration that this proves that all 12 Apostles were, undisputedly,:hypno: Welsh!!”
[/SIGN]
[SIGN]
http://bestsmileys.com/signs7/7.gif
[/SIGN]
“In a related development, scholars have recently determined that 99.99999% of the 12 Apostles had hair & teeth, and that this is the exact same percentage as the Populace of Wales.Speaking as the Official Representative of Wales,
Lady Zooey of Monty Trogs has petitioned for an official declaration that this proves that all 12 Apostles were, undisputedly,:hypno: Welsh!!” [/SIGN]
[SIGN]
http://bestsmileys.com/signs7/7.gif
[/SIGN]
K
KofC660
Guest
As much as I hate to do it, I will quote you verse. I would prefer you teach yourself, as that is more beneficial, but if you do not have the ability to teach yourself, then I will reluctantly intercede.
The only Hebrew Feast that the Course of Abia were at the Temple during the possible years of St John Baptist’s conception was the Feast of Yom Kippur, 3 BC. That would put St John Baptist’s conception somewhere toward the end of September, 3 BC. Six months later was Passover of 2 BC, the Incarnation - right around the end of March, 2 BC. John Baptist was born towards the end of June, 2BC, Jesus towards the end of December, 2 BC, when the shepherds would be tending to their ewes, who are giving birth to lambs about that time. Herod died in 1 BC, contrary to popular historical mythology (the solar eclipse preceding the death of Herod, described by Josephus, was more likely to have been the one in January, 1 BC, not March(?) 4 BC, for various reasons). There was a tumultuous civil war* in Judea after Herod’s death, which would have been a good reason for the Holy Family to get out of town, and visit relatives in Egypt (Alexandria, one of the largest Hebrew populations in the world at the time).
*actually, it was more like a general policy of genocide perpetrated by Herod’s son Herod Archelaus, who was deposed by Rome in the year 3 AD. The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Archelaus was still ruler over Judea at the time of the Holy Family’s return from Egypt, however it is not clear if Archelaus was removed just prior to the Holy Family’s move to Galilee, or if he remained in power for some time afterwards. Not that it really matters.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Mother of God has its basis on Luke 1:43; Elizabeth must be pagan then as well.
This is funny assertion, since many of the so-called temples of Isis were already gone long before Jesus came.
I have often pointed out that it is ironic that anti-Catholics make Mary into a goddess with these claims, and it is Catholics who actually don’t make Mary into a goddess. So, in my estimation, anti-Catholics are the ones making Mary into a goddess with their baseless accusations. Now that is something.
No scholar worth his salt would even dare point Constantine to the cult of Mithra; this is just another fanciful anti-Catholic legend with little basis.
Hhmm…make the bull into a lamb, and you have the Jewish sacrifice, which is the basis for the Mass. No go; only those who don’t know the origin of the Mass would make this claim.
Coming from a born again Christian, this even becomes funny since the accusation not only blames Catholics, but even Protestants.
In John 6, we see Jesus refer to the Eucharist in a mystical way, which caused much distress among His listeners, including His Disciples.
Simply? This is baseless, since one has yet to find a saint that corresponds to Jupiter, the Roman king of the gods. It should also be noted that no Catholic sees the saints as gods, so this is not a case of “simply replacing”.
The supremacy of the bishop of Rome has been recognized by such writers as Cyprian of Carthage, long before the emperors supported Christianity.
Rehashed anti-Catholic diatribes is what we see here; they have been refuted time and again here and elsewhere.
C
cpayne
Guest
Hey, I’m over at Lampeter in Ceredigion for a couple of weeks. Howdy, neighbor![SIGN]
Speaking as the Official Representative of Wales,
[/SIGN]
[SIGN]
http://bestsmileys.com/signs7/7.gif
[/SIGN]
D
DL82
Guest
Take a further step back:
Many pagan cultures had a celebration to mark the coming of light into the world in mid-December. Many pagan cultures also had a celebration to mark rebirth from death in April. Why? Because the seasons themselves dictate it. Who made the seasons? God made the seasons, and in the fullness of time, with the life of Jesus Christ, He showed us why the seasons are as they are.
We make a mistake when we assume that everything the pagans did was evil simply because pagans did it. Many pagans also gave thanks to their gods before they ate, should we not give thanks because it’s “pagan”? Many pagans had a ceremony marking the union of a man and a woman for family life, should we not have marriage because it’s “pagan”?
The heavens declare the glory of God, as Psalm 19 tells us.
Many pagan cultures had a celebration to mark the coming of light into the world in mid-December. Many pagan cultures also had a celebration to mark rebirth from death in April. Why? Because the seasons themselves dictate it. Who made the seasons? God made the seasons, and in the fullness of time, with the life of Jesus Christ, He showed us why the seasons are as they are.
We make a mistake when we assume that everything the pagans did was evil simply because pagans did it. Many pagans also gave thanks to their gods before they ate, should we not give thanks because it’s “pagan”? Many pagans had a ceremony marking the union of a man and a woman for family life, should we not have marriage because it’s “pagan”?
The heavens declare the glory of God, as Psalm 19 tells us.
- Status