Anyone watch "The Real story of Halloween" on the history channel last night?

[Flaw]

Anyone watch "The Real story of Halloween" on the history channel last night?

Your thoughts?

 

[AE14]

only got to see parts (not alot).

How was it?

 

[Flaw]

It was really good. You should find it online. It might be on youtube. Apparently it was showed last year as well. I don't know exactly how old it is. The most interesting point to most viewers might be that "The church" kept pagan celebrations alive by changing the name that eventually lead to today's halloween. Not a surprise by myself or you probably. It goes into all the little details of where all the activities and props came from. It was a very unbiased and accurate to my knowledge. I learned quite a bit more too. "Trick or Treat" actually started by people giving kids candy (a treat) so they wouldn't perform a mischievious Trick on them like setting fires and destroying property.

 

[SamuraiSid]

It was really good. You should find it online. It might be on youtube. Apparently it was showed last year as well. I don't know exactly how old it is. The most interesting point to most viewers might be that "The church" kept pagan celebrations alive by changing the name that eventually lead to today's halloween. Not a surprise by myself or you probably. It goes into all the little details of where all the activities and props came from. It was a very unbiased and accurate to my knowledge. I learned quite a bit more too. "Trick or Treat" actually started by people giving kids candy (a treat) so they wouldn't perform a mischievious Trick on them like setting fires and destroying property.

That's facsinating. I didnt know about the "Trick or Treat" part of it... When bored I have read a lot on some of the other holidays. If you find the truth behind Halloween interesting, google Easter. Every aspect of it is pagan, and it was originally celebrated 2 weeks after the second coming of christ. But the christians allowed the pagans to to keep the name and date when they went to christianity... or some such thing, its been a while since I read that one.

I wouldnt be surprised if 99% of our religious holidays have pagan roots.

 

[AE14]

That's facsinating. I didnt know about the "Trick or Treat" part of it... When bored I have read a lot on some of the other holidays. If you find the truth behind Halloween interesting, google Easter. Every aspect of it is pagan, and it was originally celebrated 2 weeks after the second coming of christ. But the christians allowed the pagans to to keep the name and date when they went to christianity... or some such thing, its been a while since I read that one.

I wouldnt be surprised if 99% of our religious holidays have pagan roots.

very well said. most holidays are paganin origin

 

[Flaw]

I wouldnt be surprised if 99% of our religious holidays have pagan roots.

You got it, The research I've done shows exactly what you've said, So why does the church encourage these holidays and events? Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Some information I've gathered about some holidays. With very little research in dictionaries and major encyclopedia's.

“Easter. Originally the spring festival in honor of the Teutonic goddess of light and spring known in Anglo-Saxon as Eastre. As early as the 8th century the name was transferred by the Anglo-Saxons to the Christian festival designed to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.”—The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (Philadelphia, 1944), by John D. Davis, page 145.

“Everywhere they hunt the many-colored Easter eggs, brought by the Easter rabbit. This is not mere child’s play, but the vestige of a fertility rite, the eggs and the rabbit both symbolizing fertility.”—Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore Mythology and Legend (New York, 1949), Volume 1, page 335.

Halloween: Though celebrated as a Christian holiday, Halloween finds its origins in pre-Christian festivals that propagate false ideas about life after death. Interestingly, we read: “After the Reformation, Protestants rejected this feast along with other important ones such as Christmas and Easter. Nevertheless, Halloween folk customs of pagan origin flourished.”—Encyclopedia Britannica (1959), Volume 11, page 107.

Valentine’s Day: “Valentine’s Day comes on the feast day of two different Christian martyrs named Valentine. But the customs connected with the day .*.*. probably come from an ancient Roman festival called Lupercalia which took place every February 15. The festival honored Juno, the Roman goddess of women and marriage, and Pan, the god of nature.”—The World Book Encyclopedia (1973), Volume 20, page 204

New Year’s Day: “In ancient Rome, the first day of the year was given over to honoring Janus, the god of gates and doors and of beginnings and endings. .*.*. New Year’s Day became a holy day in the Christian church in A.D. 487.”—The World Book Encyclopedia (1982), Volume 14, page 237

Christmas (There is a lot on christmas) Here is just one I can find.

“the early Christians did not celebrate His birth,” And why not? “Because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom." - The World Book Encyclopedia.

Also noteworthy is that the word christmas is not present in the bible. Neither did Jesus command anyone to honor his birth. Rather it was his death.

"For I received from the Lord that which I also handed on to YOU, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was going to be handed over took a loaf *and, after giving thanks, he broke it and said: “This means my body which is in YOUR behalf. KEEP DOING THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.” He did likewise respecting the cup also, after he had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood. Keep doing this, as often as YOU drink it, in remembrance of me.” *For as often as YOU eat this loaf and drink this cup, YOU keep proclaiming the death of the Lord, until he arrives" - 1 corinthians 11:23-26

And seriously what does santa claus have to do with Jesus? There's pre-christian origins of St. Nick as well.

 

[AE14]

most of the symbols are pre-christian, and in many instancecs fall into Roman holidays, or Mithras and Sol Invictus

 

[Bionic]

It seems that some may be a confusing Catholicism and Christianity. BIG difference.

 

[bigpapa]

I wouldnt be surprised if 99% of our religious holidays have pagan roots.

christmas is. it was originally the winter solstic celebration of saturnalia. when basically, the birth of christ, was put in instead of this holiday, it was easier for the converts to understand and adapt.

 

[Flaw]

It seems that some may be a confusing Catholicism and Christianity. BIG difference.

If people actually looked into what they believe maybe they would think twice but on second hand a lot of people love to believe lies and are fine not knowing the truth. Check this out.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament"

I can go on and on with the large amount of information out there.

If the doctrine wasn't established among early christians then why was it made up and why do they continue to teach it today?

 

[bigpapa]

If the doctrine wasn't established among early christians then why was it made up and why do they continue to teach it today?

out of fear. the church is the largest corporation in the world. like any other corporation in the world, they will tell u anything to get money. do people actually think that the donations on sunday mass o to worthy causes? Hell No! they go to feed the priests persistant need for high end booze and the $600 million in child molestation law suits. give money at mass and god will forgive you. this is exactly the reason i do not go to public worship. people go out of fear and being a "public relgious", meaning they just want people do see them being involved in the faith. the people who are truely faithful are the ones who A) are not afraid of god and do not have to give him money, B) practice and worship on their own terms.

 

[good2Badawg]

The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes: "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament"...

If the doctrine wasn't established among early christians then why was it made up and why do they continue to teach it today?

actually this doctrine is not explicitly laid out. but, in several places we can see the truth of it. when Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, we see Jesus ( the Son of God), The Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and a voice out of heaven saying "this is my Son...." (God the Father.) so, it is very evident in the Bible although not explicitly written.

 

[Flaw]

actually this doctrine is not explicitly laid out. but, in several places we can see the truth of it. when Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, we see Jesus ( the Son of God), The Holy Spirit descending like a dove, and a voice out of heaven saying "this is my Son...." (God the Father.) so, it is very evident in the Bible although not explicitly written.

I have so much to say on the doctrine but not a lot of time at the moment. I'll just quote some scriptures right now.

Matt 12:31 "Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. "

If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, these scriptures would completly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the "Spirit" belonged, is greater than Jesus, (the Son of man.)

John 14:28 "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I."

Jesus is clearly saying the father is greater then him. Not the same.

 

[good2Badawg]

I have so much to say on the doctrine but not a lot of time at the moment. I'll just quote some scriptures right now.

Matt 12:31 "Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come. "

If the Holy Spirit were a person and were God, these scriptures would completly contradict the Trinity doctrine, because it would mean that in some way the Holy Spirit was greater than the Son. Instead, what Jesus said shows that the Father, to whom the "Spirit" belonged, is greater than Jesus, (the Son of man.)

John 14:28 "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I."

Jesus is clearly saying the father is greater then him. Not the same.

Then how do you explain I John 5:7?? (these three are one) Or how about John 17:11?? (that they maybe one, as we are) Or John 17:21 or 22

And your logic doesn't really hold up. Just because blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable sin, in no way makes Jesus the lesser of the two. Nor, is it anywhere implicitly or explicitly state that the Holy Spirit "belongs" to the Father, at least not how you intend for it to mean.

 

[AE14]

How to explain it? Easily... It is all a contradiction and truly impossible to consider as legitimate text IMO.

 

[Flaw]

Then how do you explain I John 5:7?? (these three are one) Or how about John 17:11?? (that they maybe one, as we are) Or John 17:21 or 22

And your logic doesn't really hold up. Just because blaspheme of the Holy Spirit is an unpardonable sin, in no way makes Jesus the lesser of the two. Nor, is it anywhere implicitly or explicitly state that the Holy Spirit "belongs" to the Father, at least not how you intend for it to mean.

AE is completly correct. 1 John 5:7 was not originally in the Greek Scriptures therefore is not legit and yet it crawled it's way into the KJV.

About John 17:11 . Jesus says "in order that they may be one just as we are" If we are one with God would that mean that WE are God also? Did you miss that part? That makes no sense. Obviously Jesus is saying we are one as in we are in Union with eachother. There is a BIG difference!

Again in John 17:21,22 KJV 21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Again if we are ONE then that would make US GOD also. You must question everything you learn. Not just believe it because a priest or pastor tells you his interpretation. Do your research. Find out why they are saying what they are and where it came from. Too often today people use THEIR words and not GOD's word. Catholicism is probably the most guilty of this.


Proverbs 14:15 KJV " The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

I feel as though anyone who believes in the doctrine is not seeing what they are reading or just plain not reading but believing in what they are told.

 

[good2Badawg]

AE is completly correct. 1 John 5:7 was not originally in the Greek Scriptures therefore is not legit and yet it crawled it's way into the KJV.

About John 17:11 . Jesus says "in order that they may be one just as we are" If we are one with God would that mean that WE are God also? Did you miss that part? That makes no sense. Obviously Jesus is saying we are one as in we are in Union with eachother. There is a BIG difference!

Again in John 17:21,22 KJV 21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Again if we are ONE then that would make US GOD also. You must question everything you learn. Not just believe it because a priest or pastor tells you his interpretation. Do your research. Find out why they are saying what they are and where it came from. Too often today people use THEIR words and not GOD's word. Catholicism is probably the most guilty of this.


Proverbs 14:15 KJV " The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

I feel as though anyone who believes in the doctrine is not seeing what they are reading or just plain not reading but believing in what they are told.

ok, ill give you that MOST scholars agree that it doesnt show up until about 1500 AD but, not all agree with this. so, i will leave this verse alone for now.

but, i feel you are missing the context in John 17. Christ is asking the Father that the church, the body of believers whom God hast given to Him, be one, or unified as they are one. As in a tri-une being. Or, as one body ( the church often referred to as the body of Christs) living in one accord as referenced by Psalm 133:1, "Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!" You seem to agree with this, but then go off into some really far out conclusion that somehow it is talking about us being one with God. The key word is AS, or in comparison to. You go from talking about us being in Unity (which in many ways makes your argument against the Trinity even weaker seeing that you acknowledge unity among us in comparison to Unity among the GOdhead) to equality....Where do you get this??

He is in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM claiming the church or believers is GOD or GOD-like, or one with GOD. Again your logic, when one takes into account the whole context of scripture, isnt very credible.

Also, just another reference for you, how about when God says, "...let US make man in OUR own image." Genesis 1:26, or the other numerous mentions of God speaking and using plural pronouns. I dont think it is possible to explain all of these verses away.

I dont intend to keep arguing with you. I am just trying to point out there are many scriptures that lead us to believe in the Trinity. It is not just some Catholic or Christian fable passed down among generations. My prayer is that if youre truly a Christian that both of us could spend more time upholding the truths of scripture we agree on rather than try to go at each other on some anonymous board. There are too many divisions in the CHruch today. Again, one accord, unity-that is what is pleasing in God's sight for His children.

 

[Flaw]

ok, ill give you that MOST scholars agree that it doesnt show up until about 1500 AD but, not all agree with this. so, i will leave this verse alone for now.

but, i feel you are missing the context in John 17. Christ is asking the Father that the church, the body of believers whom God hast given to Him, be one, or unified as they are one. As in a tri-une being. Or, as one body ( the church often referred to as the body of Christs) living in one accord as referenced by Psalm 133:1, "Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!" You seem to agree with this, but then go off into some really far out conclusion that somehow it is talking about us being one with God. The key word is AS, or in comparison to. You go from talking about us being in Unity (which in many ways makes your argument against the Trinity even weaker seeing that you acknowledge unity among us in comparison to Unity among the GOdhead) to equality....Where do you get this??

He is in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM claiming the church or believers is GOD or GOD-like, or one with GOD. Again your logic, when one takes into account the whole context of scripture, isnt very credible.

Also, just another reference for you, how about when God says, "...let US make man in OUR own image." Genesis 1:26, or the other numerous mentions of God speaking and using plural pronouns. I dont think it is possible to explain all of these verses away.

I dont intend to keep arguing with you. I am just trying to point out there are many scriptures that lead us to believe in the Trinity. It is not just some Catholic or Christian fable passed down among generations. My prayer is that if youre truly a Christian that both of us could spend more time upholding the truths of scripture we agree on rather than try to go at each other on some anonymous board. There are too many divisions in the CHruch today. Again, one accord, unity-that is what is pleasing in God's sight for His children.

First off, I'm not argueing with you. I am sharing my opinion as I see it and what many other historians and bible scholars see. What's ironic is Atheists tend to do more research into christianity then many "christians" themselves and understand that the logic of the doctrine has no backbone. I will agree to disagree that I believe you are missing the context of John 17.



In the genesis account God is obviously talking to his son, Jesus.

What about all the plentiful times in which Jesus refers to the father and "He who sent me" Do you ignore those texts? The one I posted earlier where jesus says "the father is greater than I" Proves that they are separate from eachother. Jesus himself says it! Is that ignored as well?

Mathew 4:10 "Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

If Jesus was God he would say You must worship me , the lord, but he doesn't. What I don't get also is in plentiful texts Jesus is referred to as the Son of God and yet somehow people ignore that.

I believe as though I have taken off the "blinders" not put them on as the majority has done, just accepting what is told and not written.