The Non-Existent Demon of Christmas, or Easter or Halloween
Bob Thiel is out with his reasons real Christians should not keep Christmas.
Christmas is mainly for Wiccans and Witches, Pagans of all sorts and those who worship and follow Demons.
...and no, I don't mind sending you to Cogwriter. It's good to see how some reason and Grinch up the works majoring in the minors and speaking for the gods as if they knew.
First of all, Robert also seems to be writing off the top of his head as he can't seem to come up with exactly how many reasons he's given or is about to give. Shades of Dave Pack? Robert should also consider the pagan roots of Judaism and the Hebrew spin on a Sumerian creation story for the origin of the Sabbath.
followed by...
"Here is a list of 25 items people who keep Christmas seem not to fully consider:"
….and then goes on to give 24
The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are not in agreement with each other by any means and made up to both give Jesus a miraculous birth and fight the charge that he was born of fornication whose father was unknown. Matthew cobbles his tale together based on OT scriptures he takes completely out of context as well.
Next we have an scripturally out of context article about "children shall be their oppressors and WOMEN shall rule over them" and his ideas of the truth will set you free. As we know, this scripture was and is used to condemn any woman ruling over us present day and a sure sign of the end if it happens. Golda Meier and Margaret Thatcher didn't seem too wimpy back in the day as I recall.
Spoiler: In the culture of the day, children were viewed as troublesome with no say and women even worse. In that context, the male leadership of Israel was in fact leading the country AS women and children. There were no real women ruling over them at the time. That wasn't going to happen. It was an insult by Isaiah pointed towards the men of the day. In reality, there is no real issue with a woman being a President or Prime Minister. New Zealand, Iceland and Finland , come to mind and all of chosen Israelite stock! Just kidding. Perhaps Isaiah lamenting, as did Ezekiel, that the men of Israel were not up to snuff compared to Egyptian men....
"whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."
Ezekiel 23:20
(Never heard that one quoted in a sermon!)
We probably would be much better off actually with the heart of a woman running the country for a change. Matriarchy is not a bad thing and has fueled some of the most successful nations on the planet throughout history.
Part of the problem is, like most Church of God proof texters, Bob still repeats and practices "Line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little" as the formula for how to study your Bible and come to how one should be based on the search, which is another breach of context he won't admit to. Making scripture mean what it never meant is a hallmark of an untrained ministry.
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/search?q=diehl+line+upon+line
18 comments:
We are left though with a question. If you are an atheist, then the idea that there is a Devil or demons is mute.
If you are a Christian, and believe in a literal Satan, you are left with several questions.
Since Satan is a liar, deceiver, and miscreant, that can come as an "Angel of Light", then how, and it what ways is he tempting
and deceiving in the world in the present age. It is certainly a worthwhile meditation for any Christian.
Christmas seems to be a political issue rather than a religious issue within Armstrongism. The model of studying the history of modern customs and practices for pagan taint is applied selectively. Christmas is forbidden but, for instance, wedding rings, bridesmaids and "after Christmas" sales, though all connected to pagan beginnings, are overlooked.
In the world of interdenominational politics, HWA wanted his church to be distinctive. He had a strategy that involved being contrarian in regard to mainstream Christian beliefs - a sort of Anti-Christian. A few points of disagreement seemed enough to solidify this position. One would think, if the WCG were really zealous about pagan taint, it would have organized a standing committee to make decisions about everything. This seems especially a requirement since Armstrongists seem ardently fond of accusing Christianity of being latter day paganism.
In the last analysis, this selective application of the pagan taint model points towards a political rather than religious concern. Nobody is going to tell the young Armstrongist bride that she can't have bridesmaids at her wedding. A few policies like that and the already small congregations would be smaller. So it is politically convenient just to ignore the bridesmaid issue - along with other traditions that could be connected to paganism, if one really wanted to.
HWA's principal concern about Christmas seemed to often be financial. I recall his regaling and outraged sermons about members using their tithes to buy Christmas presents. Apparently, Christmas was a slow season for the WCG treasury. Nobody seemed to recognize that winter is slow for many kinds of work.
I do not subscribe to the pagan taint model. And its selective application seems philosophically deficient if one does subscribe to it. So Armstrongist condemnation of Christmas always seems hollow to me - a Millerite denomination that is soft on paganism itself, raising dust with others.
DD wrote: "The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are not in agreement with each other by any means and made up to both give Jesus a miraculous birth and fight the charge that he was born of fornication whose father was unknown."
Dennis, where do you get these wild ideas? Do you have a book entitled "Dictionary of Wild Ideas about the Bible" that you refer to? Aren't Matthew and Luke, by not coordinating their story really doing the opposite of what you claim - they would actually be subverting the narrative by inconsistency?
I think they wrote their personal viewpoints from what they knew. "Discrepancy" can be instructive in a number of ways.
Thiel is a very disturbed little man. He has learned nothing from his years inside the crypt of armstrongism.
Oh sorry, my bad. I did not see that Bob was withholding point 25 as a teaser you had to go listen to the sermon to hear.
"And those, plus the 25th (1 Corinthians 10:21-22) are in a new related sermon:"
I actually took the time to respond to each of Bob's 25 things people fail to consider about Christmas but can boil it down to some simple observations.
It does not matter who did what back in days when demons were real and church authority, the Gentile version of Paul's making of which he and his followers lost control of after his death, ruled supreme.
People do not worship demons, pagan gods or idols today in celebrating Christmas however they perceive its meaning to be for them or their Christian church.
I suppose I am a pagan but enjoy the Christmas season for many reasons. Some astro theologically interesting, some family oriented ones, some time off to regroup for another year on the planet ones and the age old promise that the darkest days are now behind and we make the slow crawl to Spring to start the cycle again. I like the study of origins. Where do things come from? Why do we do what we do? Bob seems to have an obcession, as is common in the COGs to discern the mind of God accurately or else who knows what trauma will befall us at the hands of the jealous and raging Deity.
Many of Bob's points are true historically and fall into the category of so what? or who cares? That was then, this is now.
While the New Testament encourages Christians to grow in Grace and Knowledge, I can't think of many who actually do. Grace disturbs the law men and sheriffs of the Church and knowledge gained throws them all into a panic. The usually to taking such scriptures completely out of context such as "I change not says the Eternal" and "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever." Frankly, that's the problem, not the solution.
From my perspective, the Church of God hoopla is about majoring in the minors, making scripture mean what it never meant along with a good dose of pious convictions based on marginal information and conclusions drawn.
That's how an "Apostate Former Church of God minister" and pagan as Bob labels me, thinks I suppose. I know my ways aren't Bob's ways and my thoughts are not his either. His thought are so far above mine and while my ways may seeeem right to me, well...you know.
I still consider "High Priest of Marduk" to be on of the finer titles I have been given :)
A very Safe and enjoyable holiday to all of you, and for whatever reasons you celebrate and even if you don't. Life is short. Live, Laugh, Love and Hurry! :) Life is not meant to be such the burden that the God Haunted and legalists make it all out to be. I know Bob is sincere. I get that. But he is stuck in the WCG mind set and that can only change with time, experience and a determination not to major in the minors and having the wisdom to know what those minors are. No God actually cares what we think or do and if it did, it would be incumbent upon that Deity to show up and speak up to make clear what we all argue about to no good purpose. If God is not the author of confusion the don't be a confusing God. Let every man be persuaded in his own mind, to quote the Book, and use the mind he has to find his own answers to being authentic from the inside out.
NEO noted: "Dennis, where do you get these wild ideas? Do you have a book entitled "Dictionary of Wild Ideas about the Bible" that you refer to? Aren't Matthew and Luke, by not coordinating their story really doing the opposite of what you claim - they would actually be subverting the narrative by inconsistency?
I think they wrote their personal viewpoints from what they knew. "Discrepancy" can be instructive in a number of ways. "
They are not my ideas. These perspectives are common historical perspectives by critical theologians on the origins and problems with the Birth Narratives. They actually were inserted into both texts later in the game of early church history. If you remove them, you will see that the Gospels remain intact as if they were never there. There was a time when they weren't is why.
Writing from personal viewpoints is one thing. But this is not the classic case of "the Gospels are like four people describing the same event." That is simply not so unless you go with "That was quite a crash between those two cars."...."Cars? It was a car and a bus"..."What?? It was a truck and a small plane"...."What accident?"
One of the definitive and very detailed study on both the Birth Narratives and the Death of Jesus accounts is by Father Raymond Brown, now deceased. It is a two volume set called The Birth and Death of the Messiah" Father Brown even takes Ernest Martin to task in one place for his naiveite and over literalizations of the story.
Ideas are only wild to those who have never studied them or are limited by their faith restrictions to making it coherent and consistent when it simply is not.
It is a very long story and well worth the study into why the birth narratives are there in the first place. What are the problems with believing both tell the same story and in what ways did, especially Matthew, use the Old Testament in ways it was never meant to be used to write a story that no one actually knew how it took place, or even if it took place literally.
Apart from receiving presents as a kid I was never a big fan of Christmas. For me the aversions given in Armstrongism were used more as excuses than reasons.
Reason #25 is left to the reader - maybe it will become New Truth!
Start with Bart. It's a good overview of the problems and in this day and age, the contradictions and problems with taking the stories literally are very easy to find discussed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFnzy0RPDew
In my long, depressed, fearful 13 years in the Worldwide Church of God, like others, I heard the repeated sermons about the paganism of Christmas. Really bad stuff. Made sense (at the time).
But I noted that we continued to have our services every Saturday, on Saturn’s Day. Pretty pagan, that name. No getting around it. Same for all the other weekdays:
Monday is “Moon’s Day”
Tuesday is “Tiw’s Day,” named for a Norse god
Wednesday is “Woden’s Day”
Thursday is ”Thor’s Day”
Friday is “Frige’s Day,” an Anglo-Saxon goddess
Saturday is “Saturn’s Day”
Sunday is the “Sun’s Day”
Ok, how come new and consisting members didn’t have to memorize and use the real, non-pagan, Godly (Hebrew) names — whatever they are?
Every time it was announced in services that a church event was “next Thursday,” the pagan God Thor was pronounced and accepted. Isn’t that as bad as having a Christmas ornament hanging somewhere in the hall.
Appears that the Churches of Armstrong aren’t really avoiding and repelling the pagan things. To do that, gotta memorize and use (at least internally) the proper, non-pagan names of the weekdays. Where’s the commitment?
Well, 3:23, using the very pagan names of the days of the week didnt interfere with the cash flow to Pasadena. Christmas did.
3:23
I notice the BBC is going out of their way to mention the pagan origins of christ mass, its late catholic introduction and puritan opposition to the practice in each and every Christmas program being it songs of praise, history or Caroll singing programs.
It is as if 2019 Britain has discovered the 1969 Garner Ted pirate radio station programs that were subsequently shut down by the government for the subversion of traditional British values. (pop music, American religious broadcasting and the empire that went with the ideology)
My guess is that millions of Muslims have achieved what wcg was not able to do.
A reassessment of the (traditional European) culture that has brought continuous war and the replacement (right wing conspiracy term) with an Internationalist - (American capitalist) culture based on unhinged consumerism.
Why do I subscribe to this right wing thought pattern. Because it is obvious and unstoppable and therefore true and perhaps indeed a solution for the troubles of tribalism that have plagued the world.
In that sense I believe the British will knock on the EU's door to rejoin in a decade or two when they are impoverished and weakened by Scottish and Northern Irish loss of territory exactly. By then it will not be negotiation of equals but a hostile takeover of impoverished territory as hwa (s masters predicted) (just as east German takeover after the wall).
Ok. What does this have to do with Christmas. Don't know just an observation of the BBC's current treatment of Christmas, in light of the "wodan and Thor" comments of 3:23 and GTA's hostile reception in 1967 by the powers that were. (I mean the ordinary folk happily received the (American) pop music and accompanying culture through the stations made possible by "the world tomorrow" broadcast revenues.)
Nck
christmasisalie.com
NEO,
Matthew and Luke are in agreement only with Jesus being born in Bethlehem by Mary whom they declare to be virgin. Christians conflate the two infancy narratives.
Matthew's version (Mt 1:18-2:23)
1. Jesus was conceived in Bethlehem (Mt 1:18-25)
2. Apparently they have a house in Bethlehem where Jesus was born (Mt 2:11). And where they apparently planning on returning after a trip to Egypt but ended up in Nazareth (Mt 2:19-31)
3. Unknown number of wise men came to worship (Mt 2:1-12). No mention of shepherds.
4. Star (Mt 2:2, 10)
5. No angels.
6. Trip to Egypt and murder of the innocents (Mt 2:13-18)
7. Move to Nazareth after coming from Egypt (Mt 2:19-31)
Luke's version (Lk 1:26-2:39)
1. Jesus was conceived in Nazareth (Lk 1:26-31)
2. They went to Bethlehem for the census where Jesus was born in a manger because there was no room in the inn (Lk 2:1-7)
3. Shepherds came (Lk 2:8-20). No mention of wise men.
4. No star.
5. Angels in the night sky (Lk 2:8-15)
6. No trip to Egypt. No murder of the innocents.
7. Return to Nazareth (Lk 2:39-40)
Of the two, only Matthew (mis)quotes Isa 7:14. The Hebrew 'almah' means young maiden NOT virgin. The only Hebrew word for virgin, meaning without sexual experience, is 'bethulah'. Trivia - the masculine form of almah is elem. Bethulah does not have a masculine form :)
Matthew sought to cast Jesus as the new Moses. Moses was saved when Pharaoh tried to kill Israelite babies. Jesus was saved when Herod tried to kill the Jewish babies born in Bethlehem. Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt into the Holy Land. Jesus left Egypt and settled in the Holy Land. Moses and the Israelites traveled through the Red Sea (miracle). Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River and walked on water (miracle). God tested the Israelites for 40 years in the desert. Jesus was tempted in the wilderness for 40 days. Moses delivered the Law at Mount Sinai. Jesus delivered his sermon on the mount.
Anonymous (11:11)
Thank you for this overview. I did not research each item in the two lists but I do not see a conflation. I see rather two complementary accounts overall. It is as if we have two newspaper journalists whose backgrounds and engagement with the facts cause them to emphasize different aspects of a single account. I know such a statement flies in the face of the literalists but I am not of the literalist viewpoint.
For example, the first point regarding where Christ was conceived: There seems to be no contradiction although the lists represent the conception event that way. Luke seems explicit but Matthew does not give a location for the event in the passage cited. Maybe Bethlehem was deduced somehow but that still implies a direct statement was not present in Matthew.
I regard the Bible as a Book of Wisdom rather than a product of newspaper journalism or textbook science. It is sometimes at the point of "discrepancy" that we meet some of the more profound ideas of Christianity.
1111
The Septuagint, which could have been used as a defacto "dictionary", used the word "virgin" rather than "young maiden".
Anon 6:15pm
The Septuagint (LXX) uses the Greek word parthenos in Isa 7:14. Parthenos can either be virgin or young maiden. In Gen 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah yet the LXX refers to her as parthenos after she had been defiled. Clearly she was no longer a virgin after the rape.
The original LXX translated by the 72 'rabbis' was the Greek translation only of the five books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy). The Letter of Aristeas, Josephus' Preface to Antiquities of the Jews, and Talmud Tractate Megillah 9a affirm the Pentateuch were the only books translated to Greek. St Jerome affirms this in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions. You can also check the Anchor Bible Dictionary on its article about the Septuagint.
Matthew did not mention he was quoting from a Greek translation. It's the only translation that can support his claim of Jesus' virgin birth. The problem is he said in Mt 1:22-23 that 'which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet'. What language did Isaiah used? Hebrew! IF the gospel of Matthew is truly inspired by God, why did God suddenly use Greek translation instead of the original Hebrew text in quoting what He inspired Isaiah? Matthew's intended audience were the Jews. The Greek parthenos can either be virgin or young maiden. But the original Hebrew almah is just young maiden without the connotation of sexual inexperience.
This Hebrew almah is also used in Prov 30:19. Only a handful translate this as 'with a virgin' (NKJV, ESV, God's Word). The way of an eagle in the air does not leave any trace behind. The way of a serpent on a rock does not leave any trace behind. The way of a ship in the midst of the sea does not leave any trace behind. The way of a man with a young woman does not leave any trace (unless she conceives). Such is the way of an adulteress who after committing sin carry on with her life as if nothing happened (v20). Surely, the almah here is not a virgin but a young woman who happens to be married that in case her sin leads to pregnancy, she can easily pass the child as that of her husband.
What is the context or background of Isa 7:14? The story starts from the first verse. Around 735 BCE, Syria (King Rezin) and Israel (King Pekah) attacked Judah (King Ahaz). In verse 3, God instructed Isaiah to bring his son to meet Ahaz in order to assure him of protection. A prophetic sign was given starting from verse 14 continuing to verse 16.
Isaiah 7:14-16 (NRSV)
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman (Heb ha'almah) is with child (Heb harah) and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
When Isaiah referred to 'the young woman', Ahaz knew who the young woman being mentioned. It was likely Isaiah pointed to the young woman when speaking to Ahaz. Jewish tradition identifies the young woman as Isaiah's wife. According to verse 3, Isaiah was told to bring his son when meeting Ahaz. Regardless whether the young woman was Isaiah's wife or not, she was most likely present during the conversation and was already pregnant.
A sign is something that can be seen or witnessed. It doesn't have to be a supernatural event. A rainbow (Gen 9:13) is a meteorological phenomenon that can be seen by many. Can one see a virgin conception? Isaiah 7:15-16 state that the actual sign is the boy's maturity. By the time he reaches the age to reject evil and choose good, the two kings will no longer be a threat. Read 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:5-9 for the fulfillment of the prophecy.
continuation ...
The Oxford Companion to the Bible has an article titled 'virgin birth of christ' starting on page 789 (click
here). Here's a portion of what it says about Isaiah 7:14-16:
A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, and before that child is old enough to tell the difference between good and evil, the powers that threaten Judah will be defeated. Ahaz refuses to believe the sign and sends tribute to the Assyrian king who destroys Damascus and kills the king of Syria (2 Kings 16:9). The other threatening force, Israel, is conquered by Assyria twelve years after the occasion of this sign at about the time that the child mentioned in the sign would have reached the age of maturity.
Isaiah's intent in discussing this child is clearly to set a time frame for the destruction of Israel. There is nothing miraculous about the mother or the conception process.
Post a Comment