• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Where did Christmas trees come from?

As you wish.

As to the topic I recognize Cromwell and the Puritans as a kind of proto-liberal sect. The very fact that they oppose it so vehemently is an almost sure sign that these customs are in fact an extension of holy joy and mirth about Christ. The puritan legacy is modern feminism, humanism, steamroller, rebellion against rightful law and God, and a hawkish, joyless existence of seeking out as many specks as can be found in others eyes. They are the first major regicideal, utopian, egalitarian, labour focused, hyper-individualist revolutionary sect backed and financed and backed by the very same families and interest that would go on fund the French Revolution, the Bolshevistic revolution, and today actively fund the destruction of European and North American culture and religion as a whole.

Their legacy is alive and well in the deep blue states they settled. If it wasn't they'd be trying to kill their countrymen once again, its in their nature to do so. They've dropped the religious mask for the most part but that was always going to happen considering how in bed with the anti-Christ they were.

Anyway.
As for me, I don't care about the ornaments of the world, if my wife wishes to decorate as her expression of celebration I am happy. I have no worries about focus being taken away, because I command my families focus as I see fit. We worship and sing while decorating. We talk about scripture and life and theology while wrapping. We talk about provision and sustenance over supper. Its easy on my family because they do what comes naturally and habitually.

Anyway the principle of subsidiarity demands that I ought not interfere with how they like to do to celebrate and worship so long as they are, in the end, celebrating and worshiping.

Subsidiarity is a principle well worth studying, it is how God manages the Kingdom of Heaven, and how we ought to rule in any sphere we do rule.

My girlfriend still has her Christmas decorations up, because it reminds her of Christmas everyday. I'm quite happy with that too.
 
@Grey, I'm interested to see your sources for the Puritans. I agree about the forced, thoecratic, utopian aspect, but the financial?

My biggest worry right now are the Reconstructionists masquerading as Christian culture warriors, but are in fact a rehashing of Church State theocrats from the old country.
 
To me how people chose to celebrate is there prerogative, I for once don't have an opinion....on that.

The very fact that they oppose it so vehemently is an almost sure sign that these customs are in fact an extension of holy joy and mirth about Christ

A grafted in branch bears the same fruit it would have originally borne.

A branch from a tree with a sick root grafted into a healthy stock will not bear the fruit of the stock, but it will bear its own fruit more abundantly.

And so the old Gaelic and Germanic pagan celebrations and pagan virtues grafted into the the root of Christ gives us fruit of Christian Europa with its values, celebrations, and cultures gives us all the good fruit of those cultures not in a withered, poorly grown form but fully bearing their in sweet, succulent fruit.


Dueteronomy 12:29-32

“When the L-rd your G-d cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.You shall not worship the L-rd your G-d in that way, for every abominable thing that the L-rd hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

Jeremiah 10:1-5

Hear the word that the L-rd speaks to you, O house of Israel. Thus says the L-rd: “Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good.”

How would you square your statements with scripture?
 
Last edited:
@Grey, I'm interested to see your sources for the Puritans. I agree about the forced, thoecratic, utopian aspect, but the financial?

My biggest worry right now are the Reconstructionists masquerading as Christian culture warriors, but are in fact a rehashing of Church State theocrats from the old country.

The financiers of the anti-Christ revolutions have always been the same. Reconstructionism is a branch of reformed theology, which is in turn related directly to puritanism via Calvinistic leanings.

On the other hand reconstructionism left behind a lot of the worst of Calvinism and got a lot right. Of course the Church and State should be united, you could hardly be a Christian and deny that. And of course theonony is right insofar as Gods Law is rightly interpreted. Bahnsons and Van Tils apologetics methods are top notch as well, and it's useful in every realm of philosophy. Reconstructionism ISN'T funded by the anti-Christ, and in fact is one of the better movements at fighting back against it.

Look how plainly Rushdooney wrote it:

"The heresy of democracy has since [the days of colonial New England] worked havoc in church and state". He saw through the puritans and their democratic demonism.

As an American he favored a Republic, which is of course second-rate but more or less acceptable. But anyway, he correctly recognized the democratic spirit as the anti-Christ, the elevation of all of humanity to the ruler, 666.

I don't know what old country you mean though, reconstructionism is Americana through and through.



To me how people chose to celebrate is there prerogative, I for once don't have an opinion....on that.
Dueteronomy 12:29-32

These old semitic nations where some of the most vile and corrupt humanity had ever seen. Routine child sacrifice, cannibalism, human sacrifice, torture. Just as God sent Cortez to cut off and destroy the Aztec people and God sent Rome to destroy Carthage, God sent Moses and Joshua to cut off and destroy the religions of Molech in the middle east.

God called for the complete cleansing of the land of these ethnicities. Scripture itself tells you exactly why in the very quote you provided.

Don't forget your hermeneutics, look for what scripture is actually talking about and don't be eager to universalize when it's not a universal statement.

Jeremiah 10:1-5
I suppose you see a lot of Christmas trees being crafted by chisels into idols before they're brought in? I suppose last week on the news you heard of someone invoking a curse by the power of his evergreen? You think that anyone worships a Christmas tree in any real way?

How would you square your statements with scripture?

I square it by reading the scripture in the context of exegesis, not with an eisigesis to suit my own ideas. I read it for what is there, in its context, not looking for some Pharisaical re-interpretation to condemn everyone else and make me feel holier than them because they don't follow my standards.

And that's exactly who the puritans were, that's who instructed them, that's were their ideology comes from. It's another incarnation of phariseeism.

That's what pharisees do, you see. They manipulate the law to make themselves look great by creating these giant, gaping chasms of fault absolutely everyone but their own little clique is guilty of. They split hairs until the whole lock falls off and say how evil everyone else is.

But everyone else isn't evil. Molech worshipers are, they had to be killed.

But the Romans? God saw fit that they should rule Judea, and their empire should not crumble but be made the first beacon of Christ in the east and the west. The Germanic pagans joined Christ under the frog-King Clovis. The fruits of Rome, the fruits of Germany, and the Fruits of the anglo-gaelic peoples are Christian Europe, science and faith, and more honest to God saints than the rest of the world ever produced or will produce.
 
To me how people chose to celebrate is there prerogative, I for once don't have an opinion....on that.
I guess I wasn't clear on my statement I was referring to Virtues and values of pagans. I was wondering about the scripture that supports your opinion.
the old Gaelic and Germanic pagan celebrations and pagan virtues grafted into the the root of Christ gives us fruit of Christian Europa with its values, celebrations, and cultures
and since you mention Rome
The fruits of Rome, the fruits of Germany, and the Fruits of the anglo-gaelic peoples are Christian Europe, science and faith, and more honest to God saints than the rest of the world ever produced or will produce.

Roman, Germananic and Gaelic paganism practiced child sacrifice, human sacrifice, torture. These are the same vitrues and values.
These old semitic nations where some of the most vile and corrupt humanity had ever seen. Routine child sacrifice, cannibalism, human sacrifice, torture

But the Romans? God saw fit that they should rule Judea, and their empire should not crumble but be made the first beacon of Christ in the east and the west.
Their empire did crumble but not before they set the monogamy only standard, a win for the Germanic pagan virtues and values they shared.

The Germanic pagans joined Christ under the frog-King Clovis. The fruits of Rome, the fruits of Germany, and the Fruits of the anglo-gaelic peoples are Christian Europe,
They converted, they but didn't abondened the pagan virtues and values and brought the traditions and customs, I believe I read somewhere not to do that, but alot of teachings would say that it's not universal only a certain ethnic groups customs and traditions that were not suppose to.

I suppose you see a lot of Christmas trees being crafted by chisels into idols before they're brought in? I suppose last week on the news you heard of someone invoking a curse by the power of his evergreen? You think that anyone worships a Christmas tree in any real way?
I stated at the being of my statement I didn't care about how people celebrate the holiday. That it was about your statement about pagan virtues and values. I know the passage I quoted was about idolatry you can mock me in an attempt to draw away from the fact that accepting pagan virtues and values is idolatry but I'll point it out again.

Don't forget your hermeneutics, look for what scripture is actually talking about and don't be eager to universalize when it's not a universal statement
Dont be eager to dismiss the application of scripture because it conflicts with your personal non scripture based opinion.
But everyone else isn't evil. Molech worshipers are, they had to be killed.
See below
That's what pharisees do, you see. They manipulate the law to make themselves look great by creating these giant, gaping chasms of fault absolutely everyone but their own little clique is guilty of. They split hairs until the whole lock falls off and say how evil everyone else is.
When you split hairs part goes one way and the other the opposite way.

I read it for what is there, in its context, not looking for some Pharisaical re-interpretation to condemn everyone else and make me feel holier than them because they don't follow my standards
We all use this is a forum for discussing scripture. We all have diffrent beleifs. You made a biblical statement I saw a confliction with scripture as I know it. I questioned you about it. The same thing you have done on this forum. The same thing every one else does. If asking you to be accountable for your statement made you feel I was trying to make myself holier than you. I apologize for that. Im pretty sure Puritans wouldn't like your re-interpretation to condemn them and make yourself feel holier than them because they don't follow your standards.
 
Last edited:
@Grey , we will have to just disagree. Reconstructionism may be as American as apple pie and baseball to you, but my comment on the old country directly relates to John Calvin's reformed church/state government selecting who was and wasn't a Christian and killing those who disagreed with the Pope of Zurich.

I will never abide by a state run theocracy. I don't believe the church and state should be united. Sorry if that doesn't sound Christian to you. When the state and the church unite, they will decide who is worthy of religious freedom, and it ain't independent minded, Bible toting, gun carrying, patriarchal, polygynists.

The church/state cabal will always try to control how we worship. I don't want that in my country. It's bad enough as it is now. Get some high and mighty, do gooder theocrat and religious freedoms will suffer. I guarantee it.
 
Ditto. Our Christmas has been somewhat edited from the deck the halls model, including the “holiday” songs, and our focus is not on Easter, but Resurrection Sunday.

For some it may not be a big deal and thats ok. For me, the whole fertility theme surrounding Easter became a pretty big deal.

I love Thanksgiving, whether Americanized or Jewish. I cannot stand “Fall Festivals” thinly disguised as Halloween facsimiles.
Though I realize that the original Americanized and Jewish Holidays were intended and used as a Fall Festival, all of the “Fall Festivals” that Ive been aquainted with have been themed more like a “Christian” Halloween than praising God for his blessing and bounty for the year.
It constantly amazes me the lengths that Christians go to, to justify celebrating a blatant Satanic holiday.

After rereading this, I wish I knew of a more gracious way to put this. Until then, Peace, Love and all the Fuzzy Stuff.
 
Ditto. Our Christmas has been somewhat edited from the deck the halls model, including the “holiday” songs, and our focus is not on Easter, but Resurrection Sunday.

For some it may not be a big deal and thats ok. For me, the whole fertility theme surrounding Easter became a pretty big deal.

I love Thanksgiving, whether Americanized or Jewish. I cannot stand “Fall Festivals” thinly disguised as Halloween facsimiles.
Though I realize that the original Americanized and Jewish Holidays were intended and used as a Fall Festival, all of the “Fall Festivals” that Ive been aquainted with have been themed more like a “Christian” Halloween than praising God for his blessing and bounty for the year.
It constantly amazes me the lengths that Christians go to, to justify celebrating a blatant Satanic holiday.

After rereading this, I wish I knew of a more gracious way to put this. Until then, Peace, Love and all the Fuzzy Stuff.
I mostly agree, especially Halloween. We just don't celebrate that one. Other than that, we try to make lemonade out of lemons. Emphasize the Christian ideals in each holiday. That's why Thanksgiving is my favorite. You don't have to struggle too much with that one.

Something pagan can be found in just about anything.

Don't forget that our our days of the week and months of the year are basically named after pagan deities and rulers....just saying.
 
But the Romans? God saw fit that they should rule Judea, and their empire should not crumble but be made the first beacon of Christ in the east and the west. The Germanic pagans joined Christ under the frog-King Clovis. The fruits of Rome, the fruits of Germany, and the Fruits of the anglo-gaelic peoples are Christian Europe, science and faith, and more honest to God saints than the rest of the world ever produced or will produce.

Not to pick on Grey, but so many things historically wrong with this paragraph

At different times, God saw fit to have quite a few other pagan, blasphemous, idolatrous nations rule Judea. And most of them also had meglomaniacs that desecrated the Temple and thought that they were god revealed on earth. The fact that they ruled Judea does not equate to divine favor, simply divine will.

That their empire should not crumble? What?

That they should be the first beacon of Christ in the east and the west? Sorry, they’re about 200 years too late and their beacon was more like a fascade of Christianity used to control the populace under the unholy matrimony of church and state.

The fruits of Rome and their offshoots resulted in the Dark Ages, monogamy, compulsory conversions or the sword (which is where the Muslims learned it) and they really weren’t opposed at all to utilizing the sword, the destruction of massive amounts of literature, science and retarded the growth of many disciplines under the guise of heresies not to mention the Inquisition and related atrocities. In addition the facilitating of gross sin through the sales of indulgences, the confiscation of familial estates and wealth of their own priests in the early eras by disenfranchising the legitimate children etc. and the segregation of the Jews into ‘ghettos’ and compulsory identification by wearing a yellow star. (I’m still talking about the Romans. Hitler simply copied them) The list could go on but I think I’ve made my point.

Which makes the certification of sainthood by such an “divine” assembly questionable to put it mildly.
 
Kevin,
The church has always valued the virtues and values of the pagans, Virgil and Lucretius are quoted alongside scripture by the early fathers. They are foundational to Christiandom.

None of the peoples mentioned routinely practiced any kind of human sacrifice, much less child sacrifice. The very roman historians who record it happening pride their people in having banned such practices and they being relegated to antiquity. A big part of why 'Carthago delenda est' was that they and the Phonecians practiced child sacrifice. Rome found this unbearable and saw that they had to be stamped off the face of the earth. They acted righteously.

The closest you find is some Celtic druids burning their enemies as a kind of sacrifice, but this is a far cry from child sacrifice, and not at all a routine thing.

The Roman empire did not crumble until the Venetians betrayed Constantinople to the Muslims. Even then its legacy permeates Christian Europe. Roman monogamy is not a problem for us, Roman monogamy was about limiting citizenship and franchise, it allowed secondary women. It is not like the monogamy of today.

As for pagan virtues and values, you probably scarcely know what they are. They err in being too strict and austere, but they're not even so bad as what the puritans did. Reading G.K. Chesterton's work on hermetics talks a fair bit about this, if you have the time.

Your application of scripture is hermetically unsound. Specific peoples were called to be killed, specific practices were banned. Applying these scriptures to things they do not apply to is eisigesis. You are the one over-reaching.

Read scripture like this, what is the Scripture saying? Who is it saying it too? Who is it saying it about? And only from there do you draw conclusions.

Who is deuteronomy 12 talking about? "the nations whom you go in to dispossess". Does this mean it applies to all peoples? No. How did these nations serve their gods? "they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.", do all peoples do that? No.

I should be clear that it is unacceptable to be so careless with scripture, the passage you quoted furnishes you with all the details you need to rightly apply it, but you blew right past it with careless disreagaurd. Take bible study more seriously. It is unfitting for a leader, even of a family, to be so careless.

I explained just how pagan virtues are expected to be Christianized by mentioning the parable of the grafted-in vine and explaing just how grafting-in works. This is more or less the understanding of the Church and Christiandom outside of radical puritanical sects.

The puritans condemned themselves by their regicide and rebellious natures. By their fruits you know them, and their fruit is death and destruction, and in the end the abandonment of the faith.

Mojo,

It isn't Christian. Heaven is a Kingdom, and we are to seek the Kingdom of heaven.

The thing you miss is that you're 'freedom' has produced more intrusive and overbearing states than any Christian theocracy ever did. You believe the propaganda that you were given freedom by the anti-Christ revolutionaries, when all they ever did was seek to enslave. No King or Theocratic was ever such a meddler as the American Federal Government, the government of Revolutionary France, or the Bolshevik\Stalinist government of Russia. I thought Ruby Ridge and Waco were still in peoples minds, even if they forgot that they started off fighting a war against tax only to have Washington turn around and impose greater taxes than King George ever did. And then he raised an army to enforce them in the Whiskey rebellion.

Before the English Monarchy was reduced to a puppet they not only required you to be armed but to train in your arms. They didn't give much a care what you did so long as your land paid its rents and you were available if war should arise. Most issues were dealt with at a local level, and local cultures and peoples were left alone to thrive. I mean 'benign neglect' was a colonial policy, but really it was more or less how England was run. America copied much of the best of the English system but it's had a bloated liberal federal head since the begging and it only gets more bloated.

A secularized state is an anti-Christ state. If you are not for Him you are against Him.

VerifyVeritas,

Rome is by far the longest standing empire ever, and in many ways even when other powers took its place they merely replicated roman styles and roman culture. It's more time than I have right now to deal with the swath of nonsense you posted, probably we need a whole nother thread about politics to deal with much of it.

Suffice it to say that the idea there ever was such thing as a 'dark age' belies that you're not really that into history. There was no such period, and no modern historian will use a term like that beyond telling people that it's wrong. Even bringing up the term indicates you're into whig revisionist history and not too keen on what actually happened.

What you wrote is almost entirely lies created by those that hate God to blaspheme Him and His holy church. I should expect militant atheists to post such drivel but here I had hoped not to have to such such things... It's not what you know that hurts you, but what you think you know that aint so.
 
What you wrote is almost entirely lies created by those that hate God to blaspheme Him and His holy church.

It's quite apparent that your definition of the "holy" church and mine are two different animals.
None of what I wrote blasphemed God, and to try to mischaracterize my remarks that way is sad to say the least.
Now the RCC on the other hand . . . unfortunately their misdeeds under the guise of Christianity and papal authority have been recorded and witnessed too often through history to brush aside as lies. Good luck with that.
 
Mojo,

It isn't Christian. Heaven is a Kingdom, and we are to seek the Kingdom of heaven.

The thing you miss is that you're 'freedom' has produced more intrusive and overbearing states than any Christian theocracy ever did. If you are not for Him you are against Him.

John 18:36..."My kingdom is not of this world..."
Ever read about the Inquisition?
"Not for Him, against Him???" I'm sure Zwingli had that verse on speed dial as he drowned the enemies of the Christian State.
 
You blew right pass
Pro_30:5 Every word of God is pure

We can't take something that is pure, and add to it, without adulterating it.
Why is that?
The church has always valued the virtues and values of the pagans, Virgil and Lucretius are quoted alongside scripture by the early fathers. They are foundational to Christiandom.
Scripture is foundational, Jesus is foundational, the apostles are foundational.
Besides Nothing I have read from the Early church founders had them quoting anything from the Asgardian myths, Druidic beleifs, or the Tuatha Dé Danann myths. By the way not everything the Early Church Fathers exposed was G-d breathed. I point you back to monogamy only for one example.

Galatians 4:8-11

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

Read scripture like this, what is the Scripture saying? Who is it saying it too? Who is it saying it about? And only from there do you draw conclusions.
That's where we're having issue your saying the who is only Semitic pagans while I say it applies to Pagans. A pagan is a pagan even if they're European. Your approach to try and exclude the group you favor is very legalistic.

Rome found this unbearable and saw that they had to be stamped off the face of the earth. They acted righteously.
Gladiatorial events were not only to tame the Roman mob, punishment for criminals, but began as sacrificfical ceremony to Roman G-ds. They were hypocrites when it came to sacrifice. They claimed to abhorre it but continued to practice it just under different pretenses. You are correct that as the roman empire grew it came to despise child sacrifice. Let's not fool ourselves that it was altruism when they began. Every child that was sacrificed ment less taxes in the long run and one less potential slave for the empire.
I should be clear that it is unacceptable to be so careless with scripture, the passage you quoted furnishes you with all the details you need to rightly apply it, but you blew right past it with careless disreagaurd. Take bible study more seriously. It is unfitting for a leader, even of a family, to be so careless.
I do take bible study seriously. I suggest you do the same. I asked you to support your opinion that you made a with scripture. Instead of giving a response supporting your statement with scripture, You give a passive aggressive attack on my leadership because you are unable to. I believe it is careless to ignore those scriptures and to tell me Im applying hermetics wrong in an attempt to defend your opinion.

As for pagan virtues and values, you probably scarcely know what they are. They err in being too strict and austere, but they're not even so bad as what the puritans did. Reading G.K. Chesterton's work on hermetics talks a fair bit about this, if you have the time.
Once again instead of addressing the issue of scriptural proof you respond with a passive aggressive attack. I do understand pagan virtues and values, I am by no means and expert because to be an expert and completely understand them you must embrace them. I also know that it is G-ds virtues and values that a some pagans had recognized were similar to there's but better and that's why they converted not to add to Christianity but because it is the better choice. Others converted by sword point and brought their traditions and customs.

The puritans condemned themselves by their regicide and rebellious natures. By their fruits you know them, and their fruit is death and destruction

How was the Roman Chathloic Church any different? How many Popes, who btw almost universally broke all their vows and usurped Jesus' authority as head of the Church, were assassinated by selfishly ambitious cardnials. The reformation was in response to Catholic Churches rebellious nature towards scripture for example the beleif you could purchase forgiveness ahead of time. One way is that they are diffrent is that the Chatholic Church fully embraced pagan traditions and customs, and even made pagan gods Saints.
 
Last edited:
The thing you miss is that you're 'freedom' has produced more intrusive and overbearing states than any Christian theocracy ever did. You believe the propaganda that you were given freedom by the anti-Christ revolutionaries, when all they ever did was seek to enslave. No King or Theocratic was ever such a meddler as the American Federal Government, the government of Revolutionary France, or the Bolshevik\Stalinist government of Russia. I thought Ruby Ridge and Waco were still in peoples minds, even if they forgot that they started off fighting a war against tax only to have Washington turn around and impose greater taxes than King George ever did. And then he raised an army to enforce them in the Whiskey rebellion.

Before the English Monarchy was reduced to a puppet they not only required you to be armed but to train in your arms. They didn't give much a care what you did so long as your land paid its rents and you were available if war should arise. Most issues were dealt with at a local level, and local cultures and peoples were left alone to thrive. I mean 'benign neglect' was a colonial policy, but really it was more or less how England was run. America copied much of the best of the English system but it's had a bloated liberal federal head since the begging and it only gets more bloated.

How many Christians has the US government burnt at the stake? The English monarchy, like most of the European monarchies and the Pope, has the blood of the saints on their hands. Preachers who dared spread the Gospel were jailed, tortured and burnt at the stake. When that failed to dissuade His servants they started forcing the martyr's own children to light the fires.

That didn't work either.

The church has always valued the virtues and values of the pagans, Virgil and Lucretius are quoted alongside scripture by the early fathers. They are foundational to Christiandom.

They are foundational to Christiandom. But not to the way of Christ. There are many good things in the virtues and values of the pagans. But they are not foundational to the faith. It was the importation of pagan ways and values into Christian teaching and practice that is the source of almost all the problems in the church and theology today.
 
It's quite apparent that your definition of the "holy" church and mine are two different animals.
None of what I wrote blasphemed God, and to try to mischaracterize my remarks that way is sad to say the least.
Now the RCC on the other hand . . . unfortunately their misdeeds under the guise of Christianity and papal authority have been recorded and witnessed too often through history to brush aside as lies. Good luck with that.

You are recycling lies and half-truths against the church that even an honest atheist would blush at. The hatred and contempt you show for fellow Christians is one of the gravest of errors. Blasphemy is not too strong a word here.


John 18:36..."My kingdom is not of this world..."
Ever read about the Inquisition?
"Not for Him, against Him???" I'm sure Zwingli had that verse on speed dial as he drowned the enemies of the Christian State.

>For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. (Romans 14:17 [AKJV])

Shall we not be righteous now? Should we not have peace now? Nor Joy in the Holy Ghost? We live for the Kingdom and model our lives and our people after it. The Kingdom is not of this world, we are here to show people what the Kingdom is in this world.

Yes Mojo, the inquisition was a work to prevent the horrible events of the peasant wars of Germany from happening in Spain. It worked. Both this and Zwingli was because the Anabaptists waged horrible war against their own people and the Christians of other lands had no reason to trust they had reformed. They had reformed under Menno Simms, but there was no reasons for the leaders of other nations to believe they had.


You blew right pass
Why is that?

Because the verse was to you. You seek to place things into scripture that are not there. You seek put words in scripture to apply things more broadly than scripture itself did. I have left scripture to mean what it says.


Scripture is foundational, Jesus is foundational, the apostles are foundational.
Besides Nothing I have read from the Early church founders had them quoting anything from the Asgardian myths, Druidic beleifs, or the Tuatha Dé Danann myths. By the way not everything the Early Church Fathers exposed was G-d breathed. I point you back to monogamy only for one example.

Nor did they quote Cherokee myths nor Oriental legends. Nor did they even quote much Greco-Roman mythology other than some passing references. They quoted moral and natural philosophers, those who concerned themselves with truth and virtue.

Tretullians work on monogamy was an anti-catholic one, it was part of his heretical stage. The others (when they talk about it at all) admit it is not wrong, even if they encourage conforming to their culture (which, again, allowed concubines in any case).

Galatians 4:8-11

Do you not even read what they are freed from? Read the whole chapter, read the whole book! They are not to be servants of the Law of Moses. They have been elevated from those who do not know the True God to True Heirs of the True God. What are they being warned against? Falling into Pharisaical legalism, feeling the need to follow Mosaic law as it was said. What days and times are the beggarly elements? Those of the Jewish traditional system.

The Galatians are being told not to go from one austere legalistic morality like that which pervades the ancient pagans to another austere legalistic morality which is that of the Talmundic Jews. This is clear in that this is what the book as a whole is talking about. Are you the same as the Galatians? Have you turned back from so great a grace to another austere legal-moral system?

That's where we're having issue your saying the who is only Semitic pagans while I say it applies to Pagans. A pagan is a pagan even if they're European. Your approach to try and exclude the group you favor is very legalistic.

The term pagan itself is an anachronism, it means no more or less than rural religion. I say just as Deuteronomy says, that the specific ways of worship of the specific people cited in Deuteronomy where to be wiped out, and not emulated in any way.

Kevin, legalism means something very specific. Good hermeneutics are not legalism. Adding to scripture to say things it doesn't is quite a serious error. And you're running some kind of hyper modernized translation if the word pagan even appears in your scripture. The word would be misleading at best.

Gladiatorial events were not only to tame the Roman mob, punishment for criminals, but began as sacrificfical ceremony to Roman G-ds. They were hypocrites when it came to sacrifice. They claimed to abhorre it but continued to practice it just under different pretenses. You are correct that as the roman empire grew it came to despise child sacrifice. Let's not fool ourselves that it was altruism when they began. Every child that was sacrificed ment less taxes in the long run and one less potential slave for the empire.

Executing criminals by any means is not abhorrent. Nor is it hypocrisy to execute criminals but forbid killing the just. This is quite as bad as the pro-death person who thinks a pro-life person is hypocritical for opposing abortion but allowing the death penalty.

You fool only yourself by ascribing only the worst motive you can think of into your opponent to make your case. It shows the hatred that rules you more than it proves some ill intent of your opponent.


I do take bible study seriously. I suggest you do the same. I asked you to support your opinion that you made a with scripture. Instead of giving a response supporting your statement with scripture, You give a passive aggressive attack on my leadership because you are unable to. I believe it is careless to ignore those scriptures and apply hermetics in the way you are in an attempt to defend your opinion.

No, you use scripture in whatever way you see fit. If you took it seriously the admonition about using proper hermeneutics would have made you abashed, it would have meant something to you.

Hermeneutics is about ensuring you read scripture for what it intends to say, that you are not simply putting your own ideas into it. It is a discipline. It is saying 'God your word rules me, I will seek to understand what you mean to tell me and modify my faith and life accordingly.'

The rejecting of hermeneutics is to say 'God let me tell you what you should think, I will live my life how I wish and you will back me up.'

There is no need for me to attempt to defend my opinion on these verses. My opinion is what scripture says, no more, no less. Your opinion is that it says those folks are condemned, plus any unnamned group you choose to associate with them for whatever reason. Your opposition is scripture + your will, not your will under scripture.

Once again instead of addressing the issue of scriptural proof you respond with a passive aggressive attack. I do understand pagan virtues and values, I am by no means and expert because to be an expert and completely understand them you must embrace them. I also know that it is G-ds virtues and values that a some pagans had recognized were similar to there's but better and that's why they converted not to add to Christianity but because it is the better choice. Others converted by sword point and brought their traditions and customs.

How was the Roman Chathloic Church any different? How many Popes, who btw almost universally broke all their vows and usurped Jesus' authority as head of the Church, were assassinated by selfishly ambitious cardnials. The reformation was in response to Catholic Churches rebellious nature towards scripture for example the beleif you could purchase forgiveness ahead of time. One way is that they are diffrent is that the Chatholic Church fully embraced pagan traditions and customs, and even made pagan gods Saints.

I have told you the nature of the parable of the vine, and you should well know the nature of Christian liberty. You, because you are a legalist, (not just one who accuses others of such) looks for a clear and positive law allowing something. If you operated in the spirit you would understand the parables of Christ and the writings of the Christian saints and the liberty of the beleiver and not ask for such a thing, the parables would be enough.

You look to the law for condemnation of your foes, and when no condemnation can be found you invent it! Hypocrite yourself! Decrying legalism while running to invent laws.

Don't you even see the irony? Is it lost on you?

You worry about conversion by sword point, you soft humanist. For as rarely as it happened still it was a good thing. You rush to condemn what greed and selfishness you saw in the church over thousands of years (and yes, there was some) but forget that those that came after were worse.

As Luther said of the reformation, later in life:

>"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."

>"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."

And your example, indulgences? No one allowed that. If anything the error of indulgences was one of too little papal power, rather than too much. Charlatans sold them outside the control of the papacy. Martin Luther did effect other reforms, important ones, where the Catholics did err. But what do you know of those? You are the other extreme he decries as worse than the Catholics. The catholics today at least admit almost all of of Luther's Thesis, you today reject most of them.

And lets be quite clear, telling you point blank that you need to change something because it is unfitting for a leader is not passive aggressive. If you mistake some grace in addressing you with passiveness you have merely ignored the clarity with which I implore you to change.

You are interpreting scripture wrongly to support your own beleifs, reading the immediate context of the verses you quote makes this abundantly clear. This is not passive, nor is it even aggressive, it is the truth of your situation.



How many Christians has the US government burnt at the stake?

Depends how you classify Seventh Day Adventists. Though they were not literally burned at the steak. But when you count the campaigned America waged they have quite a lot of Christian blood on their hands.

The English monarchy, like most of the European monarchies and the Pope, has the blood of the saints on their hands. Preachers who dared spread the Gospel were jailed, tortured and burnt at the stake. When that failed to dissuade His servants they started forcing the martyr's own children to light the fires.

This bit of history is found alongside 'let them eat cake' and 'people thought the world was flat before Columbus' right? Even the number of witches burned at steaks is greatly exadurated, and more a puritans of the USA thing than old European. The English Monarch King Charles I was martyred by the puritans for refusing to make the church bend knee to their humanist, anti-Christ evils.

You are projecting the evils done in the name of liberals and puritans onto Christian Kings. Robespierre has the blood saints on his hands. The American founding fathers for betraying the King that gave them their independence has that same blood of the saints on their hands. The Americans when they supported the Mexican revolution and opposed Maximilian has the blood of the faithful of Mexico on their hands. When they threw all in and supported Stalin and ensured communism had a place to thrive and grow over the whole world they have the blood of the Gulag Archipelago and the faithful Orthodox on their hands.

All these secular, anti-Christ states that seize land from the church and execute priest and pastor alike funded and backed from the seat of secular power in the American Federal Government. What could you possibly put on the scale against Europeans Kings for the last 2000 years that even tips the anti-Christian evils of the last 300 in any meaningful way?

Study history, learn what actually happened, and these things you're saying become the most transparent lies ever told.

Kings died for their faith in God, Presidents kill for their faith in humanity.

They are foundational to Christiandom. But not to the way of Christ. There are many good things in the virtues and values of the pagans. But they are not foundational to the faith. It was the importation of pagan ways and values into Christian teaching and practice that is the source of almost all the problems in the church and theology today.

No, Christianity and the way of Christ very much reaches to the philosophies of Helen, even the idea of the Word echoes Heraclitus.

The problems in Church theology today are from humanism, liberalism, and individualism being worshiped first. The churches believe in the Enlightenment more than they believe in the Gospel. And why not? So many churches that rejected this Satan-worship were outright killed by liberal revolutionaries. But the faithful survives.

The reason for error is much more plain, and Luther saw it coming, as I quoted to Kevin:

"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."

How could you not run into every error in those conditions?
 
Last edited:
Before I respond to the various statements I would like to point out you have still failed to provide scripture to back up your opinion.

There are two types of legalism.

To understand the second type of legalism, you must remember that the Gospels distinguishes between the letter of the law (its outward form) and the spirit of the law. The second form of legalism divorces the letter of the law from the spirit of the law.

Letter of the Law
(as stated by you only applies to the "Semitic pagans who where the most vile of nations" not the "European pagans who's virtues and values added so much to Christianity")

Dueteronomy 12:29-32

When the L-rd your G-d cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods?—that I also may do the same.You shall not worship the L-rd your G-d in that way, for every abominable thing that the L-rd hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

The way I see it, your form of hermeneutics obeys the letter but violates the spirit. There’s only a subtle distinction between this form of legalism and the one
previously mentioned by you. This is the legalism your using to try to exclude European pagans from scripture about acepting pagan traditions. Next your going to say that I'm not appling hermeneutics properly or properly defining leagalism...... according to your standard.

Study history, learn what actually happened, and these things you're saying become the most transparent lies ever told.
Try as you might you cannot rewrite History to suit your needs. Instead of saying there lies and trying to distract people with insults, you should try providing examples statement by statement to show with historical or scriptural evidence how each statement is incorect. It might be more productive than your opinions.

And your example, indulgences? No one allowed that. If anything the error of indulgences was one of too little papal power, rather than too much.
First there is no papal power/authority. If your going to state that there is provide scripture Book chapter verse. Then square that with the pope being head of the Church as they claim when scripture states that Jesus is the head of the Church.

Second it is a well documented fact that indulgences were sold by the Catholic church and indulgences according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church have been around since the days of the Early Church fathers. Indulgences are a missapropiation of G-ds authority from the begining. It isn't until the 20th century that it sees any real reform but it still hasn't stoped.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

An indulgence as "a remission before G-d of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".

I suggest you take your own advice and read the whole book and you should probably pick up a history book or two as well.

The catholics today at least admit almost all of of Luther's Thesis, you today reject most of them.
Luther wasn't the reformation it was in full swing when he jumped in. He was the most successful, especially with his antisemetic message that tickled the ears of many Europeans at the time. But invoking the name of Martin Luther doesn't bring me to my knees in awe and reverence. So that statement surely isn't going to shame me into silence, nice try though.

You made an opinion based statement of biblical beleif that conflicted with mine. I wanted to see how you came to your conclusion so I asked You to square it with scripture. If you couldn't all you had to say is that. There's no shame in that we all have done that. But all of this, what was the word you used....drivel you've spewed out does nothing to change that.

legalistic morality which is that of the Talmundic Jews. This is clear in that this is what the book as a whole is talking about. Are you the same as the Galatians? Have you turned back from so great a grace to another austere legal-moral system?
Just a fun fact did you know that Jesus referenced the Talmud several times in the Sermon on the mount ,and not in a negative way, to make his point.

Your attempt to question my faith by insinuating that I've turned from grace is rather pathetic. You're intellegent, I'm sure if you collect yourself you can think of a better way to convey yourself without the list of all heresies you've convicted many of us on and every way in which we don't meet your standard and revisision of history.

No, you use scripture in whatever way you see fit. If you took it seriously the admonition about using proper hermeneutics would have made you abashed, it would have meant something to you.
I would have taken the admonition about use of proper hermeneutics if I agreed with your application of it. The thing is your assuming you have the Authority to dictate to me how to apply scripture. You don't. When challenged on matters of scripture all you make are secular comments, inacurate historical facts, and make insulting comments in attempt to distract from the fact that you have nothing to support your original statement.
 
Last edited:
Brother @Grey, I respect your privilege to post on this forum. You won't be banned or run off. We are a very diverse group of posters who find unanimity in very few things. These are generally the main things. Our side interpretations and emphases can sometimes become heated, but we usually revert back to loving one another.

In these last few posts, it's pretty clear to me that you will find very few posters who subscribe to your doctrine of the Church. Your perspective is not unique, it is just not common around here. I am not a moderator, but Im sure they have no plans to limit your membership here. You will just be pretty lonely when these types of topics come up.

At some point, we will all just have to learn how to go to our own corners and realize we ain't convincing each other.

I'm going to suggest taking this over into private message land. I don't have authority, just the power of suggestion.
 
I agree with Brother Mojo. Right now the real enemy is laughing at us. Dial it back a notch. The standard for salvation is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That leaves a lit of room to disagree.
 
Back
Top