Posted on 04/03/2007 6:31:28 AM PDT by DouglasKC
In any case, between you and kawaii, you've more than adequately answered my question about the original text, for which I thank you.
As for the etymology of the word "Easter" your case that it was not seen in the earliest Church documents is well taken, though I would point out that you are merely arguing that the name comes from a different pagan goddess (one which was probably "descended" from Ishtar anyway, given the names and attributes). I'd also like to see the source that shows why Ishtar-Eostre-Easter would be a false etymology (mostly because I find etymology fascinating).
Nevertheless, there are several points on the Messianic side which you've not successfully disputed:
1) Constantine and the Council of Nicea formally decoupled the "Christian Pesach" from the Biblical date, whereas it was formerly the practice of many churches, particularly in the east, to celebrate the Feast in accordance with the Jewish Passover as our Lord did--for the express purpose of rejecting the Jews.See, if it was only the name at stake, there wouldn't be much more objection than you hear about the names of the months (March for Mars) or days of the week (Wodens-tag = Wednesday), which also happens in the Hebrew calendar (e.g., the month of Tammuz).2) Etimology aside, we've replaced the Biblical commands of Pesach (the lamb, the bitter herbs, a week of unleavened bread, etc.) and those Jewish customs which point directly to our Messiah (the afikomen, the way in which leaven is sought out and disposed of) with fertility symbols: Rabbits and eggs.
The issue--at least for me--is that we changed times and the Law (Dan. 7:25 again) rather than obeying our Lord's commands in such things. And in so doing, we inadvertently adopted in pagan symbols and practices that have nothing to do with the "reason for the season." Even Thomas Bokenkotter, a Catholic historian (and a priest, IIRC), admits that under the Constantinian revolution,
Millions of pagans suddenly entered the Church, and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy: the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection, devotion to relics, and the use of candles, incense, and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians began to face the east [the direction of the rising sun, rather than towards Jerusalem] while praying, which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers with his back to the congregation.So again, though I sympathize with the fathers for the decisions they made, usually with the best of intentions and in times of great difficulty and under enormous pressure, I think that we've lost a great blessing in not keeping the days which God Himself decreed from Sinai and took part in in the Person of the Messiah Yeshua.--A Concise History of the Catholic Church, p. 46
I’m sorry; what is your question?
No, they could be neutral, adiaphora. But that's irrelevant.
God's worship is defined by God alone. He sets the rules as to what is in and what is out.
E.g., I get a lot of pleasure out of barbecuing various choice cut of meat. Nothing wrong with that. However, if I brought that practice into the Church and called everyone to join me in my moment of "worship", that would be wrong (sin) because God has not called us in His word to drag a barbecue grill before Him. He set the terms. He defines what pleases Him. When men take over that role they invariably fail, badly. Unless their practice is entirely circumscribed by the Word of God they will begin to construct idols by their imaginations. Will-worship replaces God’s worship.
"Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the Lord and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." (Lev. 10:1,2)
Serious stuff.
??? huh ???
You're confused. The English term "Easter" is not found in any ancient or medieval church documents. They weren't written in English, or German for that matter. They were written in Greek, and (later on, in the West), Latin.
There are no similarly detailed descriptions of Christian worship given in the New Testament. (And any Jew will tell you that many of the details in Jewish worship aren't in Torah, but are known only through tradition.) Christian liturgy comes to us through the Church, and the Church is perfectly able to take objectively-good things that pagans have stolen from YVWH, and return them to the worship of the true God.
And an extremely liberal one, with quite a substantial agenda (read the last few chapters of the book; I have, it's on my bookshelf at home).
Indeed. They meant well when they worshipped the golden calf, too.
Hmm . . . so does that mean that I should automatically toss out any citations you make from conservative Catholic authors as having an agenda (that being to prop up the RCC)?
Not at all. You said (in post #88), that the name Easter "came from the Germanic goddess of the dawn, Eostre."
So you're admitting that the name is pagan, just disputing which goddess it refers to. I'm admitting that the name was not the one used in the earliest Church documents, emerging in about the 8th Century. Where then is the confusion?
I wouldn't have been used in any church documents (of any church) until the reformation.
The language of the Western Church was Latin until the Reformation, and the language of the Catholic Church in the West was Latin until, well, today (but beyond dispute until 1963) ... and the language of the Eastern Church was Greek, and Church Slavonic.
English and German aren't on that list, so "Easter" or "Ostern" wouldn't have been in any Church documents at all prior to the reformation, and not in Catholic or Orthodox ones since then, either.
No, feel free to quote liberal proponents of, e.g., women's ordination here if you like. Just don't expect many of us to give them much credibility.
BTW, he's more or less paraphrasing a quotation from Cardinal Newman. Newman included "the giving of the ring in marriage" as one of the Christianized pagan customs in his list. Y'all better get rid of those wedding rings. ;-)
We celebrate the Pascal mystery not the "Easter" Mystery.
Anyway, I've pretty much conceded the etymological point. Perhaps you'd like to concede my point about moving the date and changing the customs/commands?
Not prejudice, historical reality. As Elijah said, how long be ye of two opinions? Facts are indeed stubborn things.
it’s called passover in the bible
Indeed, it is called Passover in the Bible. Do you celebrate it in the same fashion and context as it was celebrated when Jesus commanded it to be done in remembrance of Him? Do you celebrate it on the 14th of Abib? If not, why not?
Hi.
True.
Oddly, women's ordination doesn't bother me. In any case, you're simply poisoning the well, not giving us any reason to discount Bokenkotter's specific claims in this area. Are you actually denying that when the pagans were forced into the Church that they brought many of their traditions with them? How do you, within a Biblical context, explain not only Easter eggs and rabbits, but mistletoe, Yule logs and Christmas Trees? And those are just the easy-to-point-out ones.
The fact is that there is no real debate on whether there are pagan influences on common Church tradition, but rather on how deep do those influences go. That is, are they only seen in a few odd customs that we keep around the holidays but don't really influence our theology, or do they actually (and erroneously) affect our understanding of the Bible and Christian theology?
That's a much deeper question than we can go into on this thread in full detail. However, the fact remains that there was a distinct change in the Ekklesia's practice of keeping the Passover according to the Jewish calendar that is well-documented in the early Church fathers, and that we have numerous odd rituals in our current holidays that make no sense from a Biblical standpoint, but which are consistent with pagan beliefs and practices about the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox.
You've still not even attempted to argue those two points.
Newman included "the giving of the ring in marriage" as one of the Christianized pagan customs in his list. Y'all better get rid of those wedding rings. ;-)
Nah, the Jews do that too, and the wedding ring--plain or adorned with a single stone--is about as neutral a symbol of union as one could ever imagine. Now, if we customarily decorated our rings with rabbits and eggs to symbolize the hope for a fruitful union, we might begin to wonder.
..perhaps I wasn’t clear—THE Resurrection...
Can you please show where those are part of the Catholic faith, as referenced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
In any case, don't eggs symbolize the cycle of life and the hope for a future?
Here's my original set of questions:
How do you guys define sin? Are we free to sin in the New Covenant? Can we sin so that Grace may abound? How do you define harlotry in reference to prophesy and historical Israel?
Your response:
What is not of faith is sin.
That's quite vague and not the Biblical definition of sin. Here's the Biblical definition of sin:
I John 3 4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
But we are not speaking of sin. We are speaking to the observance of days and of the other ceremonies of the Old Covenant, which is passing away and has been once and for all fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
Yes, we are speaking of sin. This is why I asked how you define harlotry. Perhaps you could address that point?
Could you elaborate on this comment? What do you think passed away with the New Covenant? Who do you think the New Covenant applies to? At any rate, the only thing that Jesus commanded His followers, those partaking of the New Covenant IMO, was for them to observe the Passover, as He was the Passover Lamb. Nowhere do we see any command to keep Easter, and, in fact, we can see ample condemnation of adopting pagan practises throughout scripture.
I don't see how any of that affects the way we are to approach the worship of God The principles still hold, esp. we only do what God has commanded in His word.
There are no similarly detailed descriptions of Christian worship given in the New Testament.
Well that should tell you somethng about gospel worship ... simplicity. No bells and smells. No altars ... no priests ... no sacrifices. And no annual holy days.
And no will-worship. No inventions based on what we "think" God might like us to do. We are to worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Both things exist outside of us. Truth is objective and found in divine revelation.
Anything else is idolatry.
I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men," (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere "will worship" (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.John Calvin, The Necessity of Reforming the Church
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.