kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (09/17/90)
> In <Sep.9.01.42.44.1990.9931@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: > >--to the moderator: > ...the "New Age" pagan movement does not honor Christ.... > This has several wrong assumptions. > 1) The "new age" spiritualist movement is not identical with the > neo-pagan religious movement. Specifically, much of the new age > spiritualism is appended to basic christian belief systems and a fair > number of new agers are churchgoers. IMHO, this hardly makes the new > age people enemies of Christ. There are a couple of things that need to be understood here. Tim gives two qualities to New Age spritualism. Let me address both of these qualities with respect to Scripture: (a) Much of new age spiritualism is APPENDED to basic christian belief systems. The appendices contradict the Book. Anything that contradicts the Book is a tool of the enemy of Christ. This needs to be plainly and clearly understood. When one writes a book, if an appendix is included, in most instances the appendix is in concert with the rest of the work. This is absolutely not true with New Age attempts to append to Christianity. (Tim, see Rev 22:18). It would take about six sentence with a "Christian" new ager before I heard something that has allegedly been "appended" to the Book which quite clearly contradicts the truths contained therein. The text below is a case in point. (b) A number of new agers are churchgoers. Read about the churchgoers in 2 Peter 2. Clearly, a churchgoer may be a friend or may be a foe. > 2) Pagan does not automatically imply Satanic. You all are certainly > welcome to your opinions about the origins and objects of > non-christian religions, but it is offensive and uncharitable to > presume that they are necessarily opposed to the aims of the > Christian traditions. Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? ... ``Therefore, come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.'' (II Cor 6:14-17, cut and pasted courtesy of Geoff Allen's previous post and the X Window System from MIT :-) > 3) Pagan does not automatically imply that Christ and the God of > Christianity (however any particular christian chooses to define him) > are not "honored". There are a number of neo-pagan traditions that > honor Christ and the Christian god as deserving of reverence. They > simply hold an additional belief that there are other divinities that > also deserve reverence. People who believe there are "other divinities that also deserve reverence" are, like a picture in the Post Office, displayed in Romans chapter 1. "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator." Since through Christ, ALL things were created, then those who believe in "other divinities" are identifying themselves with this group. It could not be any clearer. Romans 1:30, describes these people to be "God-haters". Although one in this category may not speak out loud a hate for God, their acknowledgement that One True God does not exists puts them in this camp. Yes, if one is a pantheist, he is an enemy of Christ. > I will complain slightly by saying that while I know a large number of > "Christians" that will automatically condemn others for having the > "wrong" beliefs... Well I'm not sure what "condemn" means in this context, but perhaps this postings sheds some light as to why the Christians you know have problems with "wrong" beliefs. According to the Bible, those who have "wrong" beliefs to the extent that adhere to pantheism, are God-haters. For those Christians to accept the validity of pantheism, they would have to drop the Bible from the "inspired of God" category. The professing church is well on its way to doing that today as the apostasy increases in some circles, but then again, even the apostasy was predicted as something that would take place in the end times. So the existance of such of movement, to me, increases my faith in the infallibilty of Holy Scripture because it adds just one more of many fulfilled prophecies to a growing list. Please don't take this posting as a "condemnation" but rather as a clarification as to why some Christains you know feel the way they do. If they "condemn you to hell", I have a few texts you could pass on to them if you wish... :-) -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
correll@brahms.udel.edu (Sharon J Correll) (09/17/90)
>1) The "new age" spiritualist movement is not identical with the > neo-pagan religious movement. Specifically, much of the new age > spiritualism is appended to basic christian belief systems and a fair > number of new agers are churchgoers. IMHO, this hardly makes the new > age people enemies of Christ. Just because people are church-goers doesn't mean they are Christians. I suspect that many churches are full of the enemies of Christ. The synagogues were full of the enemies of the God of the Jews in Christ's day. >2) Pagan does not automatically imply Satanic. You all are certainly > welcome to your opinions about the origins and objects of > non-christian religions, but it is offensive and uncharitable to > presume that they are necessarily opposed to the aims of the > Christian traditions. Paul said that when "pagans" offer sacrifices to their gods they were actually offering them to demons. >I will complain slightly by saying that while I know a large number of >"Christians" that will automatically condemn others for having the >"wrong" beliefs, rather fewer of my "Pagan" accquaintances do the same >simply on the basis of religious opinions. (Of course, there are some >pagans who do that, but its probably the same in terms of relative >percentages.) This is due to the unique character of Christianity. Christianity is an exclusive faith. There is no room in it for the "I think Christianity is best, but if people have another religion that's fine too" approach. That's why Christians seem "narrow-minded" to others sometimes. Jesus says that the road to destruction is broad, and many people go that way, but the road to life is narrow, and only a few find it. -- ---\ Sharon Correll \--------------- ----\ University of Delaware \-------------- -----\ Academic Computing and Instructional Technology \------------- ------\ correll@sun.acs.udel.edu \------------
lionti@ecs.umass.edu (09/17/90)
wolves!wolfe@remus.rutgers.edu (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes: > I will complain slightly by saying that while I know a large number of > "Christians" that will automatically condemn others for having the > "wrong" beliefs, rather fewer of my "Pagan" accquaintances do the same > simply on the basis of religious opinions. > > G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC Why do you complain? Of course there are more "Christians" that will condem others for having "wrong" beliefs as compared to "Pagans" that do the same simply on the basis of religious "opinions" because most Christians believe in Objective Truth and Morality as compared to the idea of Subjective Truth and Morality espoused by many Pagans. Pagans would be less likely to condem others because their world view gives relatively equal weight to everyone's religious "opinions" and so they wouldn't feel justified in attacking anyone else's opinions, except those who hold the "opinion" that there is Objective Truth and Morality. To some extent, Pagan's only Objective Truth is that there is no Objective Truth (at least not that man can know) and so we must operate under the idea of Subjective Truth and Morality if everyone is to get along (i.e. I'm OK, Your OK). Thus, your "statistics" don't surprise me. This is certainly NOT to condone people who "condem" other people!!! "...forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us..." are certainly words to live by, as far as I'm concerned. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric C. McClure |"96.37 percent of all statistics are made up" lionti@umaecs.bitnet | Standard Disclaimer | -another NETter who I don't remember --------------------------------------------------------------------
muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) (09/18/90)
wolves!wolfe@remus.rutgers.edu (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes: >1) The "new age" spiritualist movement is not identical with the > neo-pagan religious movement. Specifically, much of the new age > spiritualism is appended to basic christian belief systems and a fair > number of new agers are churchgoers. IMHO, this hardly makes the new > age people enemies of Christ. I must say this is the first time I heard from a Christian that the New Age movement is not dangerous. Maybe just because I didn't talk about it with non dutch people. I think the new age movement is dangerous because they try to incorporate different beliefs into one entity, just like hinduism tends to do, and are acting like the gnostics that the New Testament warns us so clearly for. That people are churchgoers does of course not say very much (if not nothing) about being a friend of Christ or not. >2) Pagan does not automatically imply Satanic. You all are certainly > welcome to your opinions about the origins and objects of > non-christian religions, but it is offensive and uncharitable to > presume that they are necessarily opposed to the aims of the > Christian traditions. Depends on the definition of Satanic. If you mean, knowingly worshipping Satan, than I agree with this point. But in general the bible tells about the sharp line between the light and the dark, between the kingdom of God and the empire of Satan, which is the earth at the moment. As Christians we are in occupied territory. Everything which is not of Christ is more or less under the influence of Satan, if not part of his empire. By the way, nothing is more dangerous as things that look nice and 'Christian' but are twisted. That are the wolves in sheepclothes and the false prophets the bible speaks about I think. Does not the devil try to mislead us by imitating good things? He knows he cannot trap Christians if it looks too obvious. (see for example the 3 letter of John, about secretely sneeking in of heresy) >3) Pagan does not automatically imply that Christ and the God of > Christianity (however any particular christian chooses to define him) > are not "honored". There are a number of neo-pagan traditions that > honor Christ and the Christian god as deserving of reverence. They > simply hold an additional belief that there are other divinities that > also deserve reverence. >Note carefully: none of this is to imply that the new age or pagan >movements are "christian" in the commonly understood sense of the word. >Nor is it intended to denigrate the faith of any particular Christian >person. I get rather upset when anyone places another person in >opposition to themselves based on wrong information. But we should not forget that Christianity is exclusive, Christ is the only way and no other name is given under the sun for salvation. (2 quotations from somewhere). This does not mean that we should not respect people with other views, but we should not respect the misleadings that Satan is filling the world with. >I will complain slightly by saying that while I know a large number of >"Christians" that will automatically condemn others for having the >"wrong" beliefs, rather fewer of my "Pagan" accquaintances do the same >simply on the basis of religious opinions. (Of course, there are some >pagans who do that, but its probably the same in terms of relative >percentages.) But a pagan beliefe could, just like Hinduism does, have as believe that there are many ways to God, and theirs is just one of them. Then of course they will not condemn others. We should not condemn either, I agree, but that does not mean that we should leave everyone in lies and untruth. We must not press, or become unfriendly, but we must realise that people are *lost forever* without Christ. That is terrible, and we cannot sit still with that knowledge, can we? It would be wrong if we would invent it or be happy with this situation because then we are part of a 'small chosen group'. No I am not happy at all to belong to a small group, and do not feel better because of it. But that is no reason to lose the truth that Jesus told us so clearly that no one comes to the Father then through Him. -- Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht nmutsaer@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-533880 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.13.02.20.28.1990.23836@athos.rutgers.edu> wolves!wolfe@remus.rutgers.edu (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes: >In <Sep.9.01.42.44.1990.9931@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >>--to the moderator: >> >>what have we (Christians) in common with the world? do you think it >>proper for Christians to be joining with Satan? certainly the "New >>Age" pagan movement does not honor Christ, and has expended effort to >>undermine Christ's Church - should we join them now? (i'm not missing >>the point that prayer for avoidance of war -if possible- is appropriate.) > >Not to ignore the rest of Tim's commentary about christian isolationism, ^^^^^^ ????? ^^^^^^^^^ Christians are to be "in the world", but *not* "of the world." We have been called out, so for a Christian to consciously associate himself with a religious movement which runs counter to Christian theology at best suggests that he doesn't have a very solid idea about what he believes, and at worst is rank hypocrisy. >I would like to object strongly to Tim's misinformation. He says: I believe you have some grave misinformation about Christianity as well... >1) The "new age" spiritualist movement is not identical with the > neo-pagan religious movement. Specifically, much of the new age > spiritualism is appended to basic christian belief systems and a fair ^^^^^^^^ (Translation) "Your scriptures are incomplete without our stuff as well..." The Apostles were actively engaged in combatting these notions. > number of new agers are churchgoers. IMHO, this hardly makes the new > age people enemies of Christ. Since when has attending church made anyone a candidate to enter the Kingdom of God? Certainly Christ had quite a lot to say to those who were confident in their religiosity. He called them "a brood of vipers"! Many will say "Lord, Lord, look what we did in Your name", but the Almighty will tell them "Depart from Me, I never knew you." While these people don't consider themselves perhaps antagonists toward Christ, He considers that those who are not *for* Him, are against Him. The Christian recognizes that it doesn't matter what any *human* thinks, (this includes me!) in the final analysis; it's what *God* says that counts. >2) Pagan does not automatically imply Satanic. You all are certainly > welcome to your opinions about the origins and objects of > non-christian religions, but it is offensive and uncharitable to > presume that they are necessarily opposed to the aims of the > Christian traditions. I never said that all pagans were involved in "Satan-worship," though by the yardstick of Christian theology, those who are not Christ's sheep are counted as goats; ultimately, Christianity (which is NOT a "religion", contrary to what many (most?) non-Christians appear to believe) considers that other religions are ultimately traps set up by Satan to turn people away from trusting Christ, and Christ *alone* for their salvation. Christianity does not recognize a "neutral ground". This is what I meant when I said that the world claims that "it's all the same anyway." Christ's claim to Uniqueness, "*I* am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father, but through Me," does not allow for any misinterpretation to suggest that there might be multiple "paths." >3) Pagan does not automatically imply that Christ and the God of > Christianity (however any particular christian chooses to define him) > are not "honored". There are a number of neo-pagan traditions that > honor Christ and the Christian god as deserving of reverence. They ^^^^^^^^ > simply hold an additional belief that there are other divinities that > also deserve reverence. I will be the last to question their sincerity in their belief that they wish to "revere" God. However, the Almighty says, "I am God and there is *none* other like Me." >Note carefully: none of this is to imply that the new age or pagan >movements are "christian" in the commonly understood sense of the word. >Nor is it intended to denigrate the faith of any particular Christian >person. I get rather upset when anyone places another person in >opposition to themselves based on wrong information. I haven't misunderstood you, but there *is* a great deal of misinformation about what is "commonly understood" about Christianity. As our moderator noted in another post, "christian" does NOT equal "Christian." >I will complain slightly by saying that while I know a large number of >"Christians" that will automatically condemn others for having the >"wrong" beliefs, rather fewer of my "Pagan" accquaintances do the same >simply on the basis of religious opinions. (Of course, there are some >pagans who do that, but its probably the same in terms of relative >percentages.) Mr. Woodbury, I must impress upon you that while it is not a Christian's (certainly not mine) aim to condemn someone to Hell, it is also imperative that the Christian be firm about delineating the line between worldly religions, and Christianity (again, not a "religion"). Christ did not recognize any other path into the Kingdom of Heaven except through Him. While it is commendable to the pagans that they are not necessarily militantly opposed to Christianity, the Christian cannot reciprocate the notion of "Well, you're ok, too", without com- promising Christianity's most fundamental tenet, that there *is* no other way into Christ's Eternal Kingdom. --- Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (09/20/90)
In article <Sep.13.02.20.28.1990.23836@athos.rutgers.edu> wolves!wolfe@remus.rutgers.edu (G. Wolfe Woodbury) writes: >Not to ignore the rest of Tim's commentary about christian isolationism, >I would like to object strongly to Tim's misinformation. He says: > > ...the "New Age" pagan movement does not honor Christ.... > >This has several wrong assumptions. > >1) The "new age" spiritualist movement is not identical with the > neo-pagan religious movement. Specifically, much of the new age > spiritualism is appended to basic christian belief systems and a fair > number of new agers are churchgoers. IMHO, this hardly makes the new > age people enemies of Christ. Just a cursory study of the New Age Movement makes it easy to see that it is nothing more than and extension of Hindu thought with a western twist. There are similarities in every religion, but Christ does not allow room for competition. Christianity is black and white with Christ the singular Lord and Savior. Any religion that masks or dilutes this, as the NAM does, it is deception and you know who the father of that is. >2) Pagan does not automatically imply Satanic. You all are certainly > welcome to your opinions about the origins and objects of > non-christian religions, but it is offensive and uncharitable to > presume that they are necessarily opposed to the aims of the > Christian traditions. IMHO, "Christian traditions" can be just as Satanic as Paganism. And you are right, Christianity is an offensive religion (at least many of the people are), however, true Christianity is not uncharitable, but quite the contrary. >3) Pagan does not automatically imply that Christ and the God of > Christianity (however any particular christian chooses to define him) > are not "honored". There are a number of neo-pagan traditions that > honor Christ and the Christian god as deserving of reverence. They > simply hold an additional belief that there are other divinities that > also deserve reverence. Pagan may not imply it, but Christ does. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...Jn 3:16. I bring you attention to "only begotten". There is no other divinity. Christ states that He is the way, truth, and life and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Christ (and therefore, Christians do not acknowledge any other diety and to rever or worship any other is idolatry and sin of the worst sort. "You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him... You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth." Deut.6:14,15. > >Note carefully: none of this is to imply that the new age or pagan > movements are "christian" in the commonly understood sense of the > word. Nor is it intended to denigrate the faith of any particular > Christian person. I get rather upset when anyone places another > person in opposition to themselves based on wrong information. My responses are not intended to be offensive, but I do wish to inform you as to some foundational truths of Christianity. It is not that paganism does not follow some of the tenants of Christianity, but Christianity does not, by the nature of Christ, allign in any form with paganism. > >I will complain slightly by saying that while I know a large number of > "Christians" that will automatically condemn others for having the > "wrong" beliefs, rather fewer of my "Pagan" accquaintances do the same > simply on the basis of religious opinions. (Of course, there are some > pagans who do that, but its probably the same in terms of relative > percentages.) >-- >G. Wolfe Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC > UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!wolfe ...mcnc!wolves!wolfe [use the maps!] > Domain: wolfe%wolves@mcnc.mcnc.org wolfe%wolves@cs.duke.edu > [The line eater is a boojum snark! ] <standard disclaimers apply> I will complain more than slightly in agreeing with you on the condemnative nature of many Christians. It is this prideful attitude that keeps many of the pagans from experiencing the true joys of a relationship with the risen Chist.
rick@jts.com (Rick Yazwinski) (10/01/90)
[Kenneth Kutz says that New Age beliefs contradict the Bible, and thus objects to a previous claim that they are simply adding some new ideas to Christianity. Anything that contradicts the Bible can't be made part of Christianity. --clh] Ken, I see the point you're making; however, one question pops into my mind. What of the (sp?) Pistis Sophia? This was a part of the Christian Bible until some pontif in (I believe) the 15th century decided to remove it. Now, as I understand it, the Christian Bible is supposed to be the "words of God", if that's the case how could a mere mortal decide that part of it is not longer valid? In this book, many of the "New Age" beliefs are mentioned (reincarnation being one of them). > Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do > righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship > can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between > Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an > unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God > and idols? ... ``Therefore, come out from them and be > separate, says the Lord.'' (II Cor 6:14-17, cut and pasted courtesy > of Geoff Allen's previous post and the X Window System from MIT :-) > Yes, don't be yoked with unbelievers - I can speak from experience that this doesn't work. At the same time, don't follow the customs of unbelievers, for that would only soil yourself. No Christmas tree this year, it was "borrowed" from the previous pagan religions and is a Yule tree. No bunnies or eggs at Easter, they have nothing to do with the ressurrection of Christ but are symbols of fertility and coincide with the pagan festivals of fertility. Denounce St. Patric, who before he was Christinified was called Patricius and was a Druid!!! Those of you of Judaic background, get rid of your hexagrams, they're symbols dating back thousands of years before Christianity to Tibetan Taoists (I believe) and are a symbol of the combination of Male and Female sexes (in fact the Kabbalists out there, if they're honest, will tell you that there's a picture in the arc of the covenant depicting, rather graphically, this union). >"They >exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things >rather than the Creator." Since through Christ, ALL things were created, then >those who believe in "other divinities" are identifying themselves with this >group. It could not be any clearer. Romans 1:30, describes these people >to be "God-haters". Although one in this category may not speak out loud a >hate for God, their acknowledgement that One True God does not exists puts >them in this camp. Yes, if one is a pantheist, he is an enemy of Christ. I do not consider pagans/heathens to be enemies of Christ. It doesn't make sense. If person A doesn't believe that person B exists how could person A be person B's enemy? It doesn't scan. >Well I'm not sure what "condemn" means in this context, but perhaps this postings >sheds some light as to why the Christians you know have problems with "wrong" >beliefs. According to the Bible, those who have "wrong" beliefs to the extent >that adhere to pantheism, are God-haters. For those Christians to accept the >validity of pantheism, they would have to drop the Bible from the "inspired of >God" category. The professing church is well on its way to doing that today >as the apostasy increases in some circles, but then again, even the apostasy >was predicted as something that would take place in the end times. So the >existance of such of movement, to me, increases my faith in the infallibilty >of Holy Scripture because it adds just one more of many fulfilled prophecies >to a growing list. > I haven't read this group frequently, but I was curious, so please excuse me if this has already been brought up, but... Is it not possible that... All beliefs all over the world - pagan/heathen/Christian/Buddist/etc.... all worship the same superiour being (whatever/whoever that may be) and that they do it in a way that works most effictively for them. No Christian that I've ever met would disagree with the statement that "God is in this tree." or "God is in this animal." For Christians believe that everything is of the God. Twisting the concept slightly you can see that panthism makes sense. Religions that have more than one God/dess figure - easily explained in this context, the different Gods/Goddesses are different aspects of the one greater being and are easier to conceptualize. Think about it, if you have an open mind and are willing to think it makes a lot of sense. -- Rick Yazwinski | To Be Silent JTS Computer Systems Ltd. | To Dare --------+-------- To Know {yunexus,uunet,geac,torsqnt}!jts.com!rick | To Will [People have certainly criticized concentration on the Bible by claiming that the selection of the books in the Bible are arbitrary. Alternatives proposed include various books with Gnostic leanings (which were an issue during the first few centuries of Christianity, and the issue of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals (which are primarily an issue between Catholics and Protestants now). However claims of a Pope changing the Bible in the 15th Cent. have to be wrong. Current Bibles are translated from documents dating from 2nd to 5th Cent's. The only later chnages would be the Protestant rejection of the Apocrypha. I've never heard of Pistis Sophia. --clh]
cms@gatech.edu (10/04/90)
[In a previous article, Rick Yazwinski suggested that a Pontif in the
15th Cent. removed "Pistis Sophia" from the Bible. --clh]
I hadn't heard of Pistis Sophia either. The Concise Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church has this to say:
"A 3rd-cent. work of Egyptian origin which purports to record
instructions given by Christ to certain disciples at the end of a
12-year soujourn on earth after the Resurrection. With fantastic
imagery it relates the salvation of the personified 'Pistis Sophia'
(i.e., 'Faith-Wisdom') from a demon named 'Self-Will'."
Unfortunately, that's all it says. My "Documents of the Christian
Church," which contain original documents for most early heresies,
doesn't mention it (that I could find under that name). None of my
other theological dictionaries/enclyclopedias mentioned it either.
Perhaps it was a recent discovery?
--
Sincerely,
Cindy Smith
_///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ //
_///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<<
<`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\
\\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\
\\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ //
emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<<
\\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\
GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgiarick@jts.com (Rick Yazwinski) (10/07/90)
>[People have certainly criticized concentration on the Bible by >claiming that the selection of the books in the Bible are arbitrary. >Alternatives proposed include various books with Gnostic leanings >(which were an issue during the first few centuries of Christianity, >and the issue of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals (which are primarily >an issue between Catholics and Protestants now). However claims of a >Pope changing the Bible in the 15th Cent. have to be wrong. Current >Bibles are translated from documents dating from 2nd to 5th Cent's. >The only later chnages would be the Protestant rejection of the >Apocrypha. I've never heard of Pistis Sophia. --clh] I believe that my date of the 15th Cent. was wrong; however, the Pistis Sophia is said to be part of Paul's work, and was at one time part of the Christian bible, and was at some point (unfortunately I don't have the precise date) removed. Another example of mortals modifying the word of God is the King James VERSION. I believe that this is one of the most common versions around. It was explicitly modified by King James for POLITICAL REASONS!!! Rick... -- Rick Yazwinski | To Be Silent JTS Computer Systems Ltd. | To Dare --------+-------- To Know {yunexus,uunet,geac,torsqnt}!jts.com!rick | To Will [OK, now I'm at home so I have my reference works. New Testament Apocrypha, edited by Hennecke, is the main reference on books outside the current NT. It has some samples from Pistis Sophia, and a few pages about it. It is a Gnostic work, where Christ after his resurrection tells his disciples the secrets of the heavenly places. Typical Gnostic. The manuscript on which Hennecke's account is based (there could be more recent info from Nag Hammadi or something) appears to be late 4th Cent. Scholars believe the document was written between 250 and 300, except for a separate part at the end which seems to be from the first half of the 3rd Cent. Whether it was ever part of the Bible is a matter of definition. It presumably had some status for the group that originated it. There were lots of these Gnostic gospels. But it doesn't seem to have ever been part of the tradition that led to our current Bible (i.e. the Catholic tradition). We have lists of canonical books beginning at about 200. I've looked through these various lists, and don't see Pistis Sophia on them. There are certainly things that appear on some of these lists (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas) that are not in our current NT. But that's fairly unusual. Generally the debates were over whether to include certain books that are in our NT, not other books. --clh]
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/21/90)
[Rick Yazwinski) wrote commands about "don't be yoked with unbelievers", suggesting that attempts to avoid things with pagan backgrounds don't work. It leads to banning Christmas tree, Easter, St. Patrick, the Kabbalistic traditions. --clh] Would it surprise you to know that there are many Christians who do not celebrate in this fashion? I'm not speaking of Jehovah's Witnesses. In my home, Christmas and Easter are not celebrated in the usual manner. I do not take any of my brothers and sisters to task for so doing, but I simply cannot honor the foreign gods in this manner. I believe that it is a matter between each individual Christian and our Father. As for St. Patrick's Day, I've never celebrated that day--now that I'm no longer in the Army, I only own a couple of items of clothing that are green, none of which are worn on that day. As my children grew up, we never taught them that there was a Santa Claus or Easter bunny. Honestly is still the best policy--even with the wee ones. >I do not consider pagans/heathens to be enemies of Christ. It doesn't make >sense. If person A doesn't believe that person B exists how could person A >be person B's enemy? It doesn't scan. Well, scan this one, Jesus says that those that are not for Him are against Him. Jesus seems to make it very plain that those who do not follow Him are His enemies. Paul also makes it clear that no one has an excuse not to believe for God has made Himself known. >I haven't read this group frequently, but I was curious, so please excuse me >if this has already been brought up, but... Is it not possible that... >All beliefs all over the world - pagan/heathen/Christian/Buddist/etc.... all >worship the same superiour being (whatever/whoever that may be) and that they >do it in a way that works most effictively for them. No Christian that I've >ever met would disagree with the statement that "God is in this tree." or "God >is in this animal." For Christians believe that everything is of the God. >Twisting the concept slightly you can see that panthism makes sense. Religions >that have more than one God/dess figure - easily explained in this context, >the different Gods/Goddesses are different aspects of the one greater being and >are easier to conceptualize. Think about it, if you have an open mind and >are willing to think it makes a lot of sense. The Luciferian concepts contained in many of the New Age groups, and to which some pagans lay claim, have their roots in the ancient mystery schools. They hold that the God of the Christians is the actual enemy, but Lucifer is the true god of peace and light. The Buddhist come out of Hinduism. Buddhist do not recognize the existence of one true God. In fact the Buddha said that such teachings tended not toward edification. The Hindus have a multitude of gods and semi-divine beings. They generally seem to have this concept of an impersonal deity called Bramha. Those that practice primitive or ethnic religions also have some form of an impersonal deity out there somewhere, but tend to pray to local deities. None of these are in anyway related to the God of the Bible. That God is not impersonal. He has reached out to mankind through Jesus Christ. Further, He revealed His name to Moses as YHWH, which we pronounce today as Jehovah. As for you statement concerning pantheism, I'm a Christian and disagree with the pantheistic view. Yes, I agree that God is in all of creation in the sense that He created it and sustains it by His common grace. But that is a far cry from saying that God is in everything and everything is God. Let me leave you with this thought. Jehovah God says that He is the only God, there is none other. He reached out to us through Jesus Christ. If you want true spiritual enlightenment, ask Jesus in to your life and repent of your sin toward Him. You will, without a doubt, have enlightenment to talk about. Because He lives, Gene Gross [When you say you "cannot honor the foreign gods in this manner", I trust you are not implying that those who celebrate Christmas or Easter are honoring foreign gods. From my past readings of you, I assume not, but the accusation has been made by others. For most of us, there is no more connection between Yule logs and whatever god was involved than between use of the word Thursday and worship of the god Thor. Indeed one can make a case that groups who dredge up pagan backgrounds from the dim past are actually creating pagan associations for people who would not have had them at all. The more serious issues of Christmas and Easter seem to me preserving the Christian meaning against all the secular and commercial influences. Of course those who would associate celebrations with other gods should certainly abstain from them. --clh]
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/23/90)
Chuck, is there a category for the most responses to one's own postings--if so how am I doing? ;-) I posted in part: >In >my home, Christmas and Easter are not celebrated in the usual manner. I >do not take any of my brothers and sisters to task for so doing, but I >simply cannot honor the foreign gods in this manner. I believe that it >is a matter between each individual Christian and our Father. As for To which OFM says: >[When you say you "cannot honor the foreign gods in this manner", I >trust you are not implying that those who celebrate Christmas or >Easter are honoring foreign gods. From my past readings of you, I >assume not, but the accusation has been made by others. For most of >us, there is no more connection between Yule logs and whatever god was >involved than between use of the word Thursday and worship of the god >Thor. Indeed one can make a case that groups who dredge up pagan >backgrounds from the dim past are actually creating pagan associations >for people who would not have had them at all. The more serious >issues of Christmas and Easter seem to me preserving the Christian >meaning against all the secular and commercial influences. Of course >those who would associate celebrations with other gods should >certainly abstain from them. Let me come at this from a bit different direction. First, I want to apologize to any brother or sister out there who took offense at what I posted. I intended no offense. I tend to agree that those trying to prove some nefarious case against Christians often dredge up the old pagan connections bit. In fact, since I've been posting to this group (close to a year now--maybe longer), this is the first time that I've expressed myself on this issue. For me, it ranks right down there with how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, or how many teeth are in a horses mouth. ;-) If any one thinks that I'm going to insist that my view be the mainline view, wrong!!! My wife is not like me in that she tends to decorate. Shortly after we were married, we had a long talk about my feelings on things like Christmas trees, etc. I am not a tyrant. If she wants to celebrate in the manner, I will not "lay down the law." She is comfortable in her celebrations. I understand the symbolism as it relates to both the pagan and Christianity. This does not alter my view that originally pagan gods were honored by such things. It may be that my faith is weak and I cannot find the faith at this time to rise above these things. If such be the case, then please love my anyway, I pray that you will. I do enjoy the hymns of the seasons and sing them with great joy in my heart. While there is no command to celebrate His birth, I can find no reason to be opposed to celebrating His birth--Salvation had come to us and that is reason enough to celebrate. So if you put up trees during the Christmas season to celebrate the birth of the Savior, then I say God be praised! For His glory, Gene Gross
dtrowbri@encad.wichita.ncr.com (Doug Trowbridge) (10/29/90)
> >[When you say you "cannot honor the foreign gods in this manner", I > >trust you are not implying that those who celebrate Christmas or > >Easter are honoring foreign gods. Leviticus 23; Lists all of Gods Holy days. Easter and Christmas are not among them. Deuteronomy 12; 29-32. God says to take heed not to worship him the way other nations (pegan) worship their gods. God also commands that we do not add to, or take away from his Holy days. >