Here's a good one showing the diff between the "Sun" and the "Son" in scripture written by Malachi. He said in 4:1-2:

For behold the day comes that shall burn as an oven (extreme global warming God style) and ALL the proud, yes and ALL that do wickedly shall be stubble and the day that comes shall burn them up says the Lord of hosts that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

But unto you that fear my name shall the SUN of righteousness arise with healing in his wings and you shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall.

The Sun of righteousness here is an impersonal reference to the display of righteousness throughout the entire earth (as the sun sends its rays everywhere) in the coming kingdom of God.

Also of note is the book of Revelation that says at the end there will be NO more SUN (nor moon for that matter) but only the SON who will rule heaven and earth. He's all the light we will need.

The Sun of righteousness here is an impersonal reference to the display of righteousness throughout the entire earth (as the sun sends its rays everywhere) in the coming kingdom of God.

Also of note is the book of Revelation that says at the end there will be NO more SUN (nor moon for that matter) but only the SON who will rule heaven and earth. He's all the light we will need.

Very sound study KFC...'well done thy good and faithful servant'. I have found there to be many analogies that speak of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Word of God.... without the illumination of the Spirit of Truth, one is left to the follies of the flesh and attempts to fill the spiritual void with vain and foolish religion.

Merry Christmas my friend.

Peace
hamartano

why exactly would god need or want a son? doesn't a 'begotten son' insist upon a time prior to the act of begetting? for that matter, how/why was such a begetting accomplished?

since i'm sure someone is gonna provide reasoned answers to those questions, here's another. is it acceptable to refer to god as mary's babydaddy?

Yet another slightly intersting blog devolved into scripture quoting fest. I think it shows some insecurity if christians can't just say "Sure, the 25th probably isn't Christ's actual birthday but what does it matter what day we celebrate as long as we celebrate." So many cultural and religious traditions have melded to create the holiday traditions that we have today. Why not just admit and accept?

Sure, people knew what was christian and what was pagaen when it all started coming together. But to deny that a lot of the "season" comes from pagaen tradition is just silly.

Merry Christmas no matter how you celebrate it.

LW POSTS:

LW,

The ancient pagan myths are taken from nature representing the succession of day and night or of the seasons, and the mystery of life and its transmission from one creature to another. They are undated, and unlocated, and generally belong to a vaguely imagined period before the coming of man. The account of our Lord’s birth, death and resurrection, has the form, not of myth, but of actual history, place, date and contemporary persons and events are specified and it is not only interwoven with the texture of general history, but also with the event’s in Our Lord’s life in such a way as to be inseparable from the Gospel account of them. In short, there was no conscious adaptation of pagan myth by the Gospel writers and to claim such would be a gross supposition neglected by reputable scholarship.

Although Sunday may have been the day celebrated in honor of the gods of Mithra, we Catholics DIDN’T get Sunday from Mithraism. This wasn’t the reason for its selection by the early Christians.


AD posts #155

Lw, I think there is some evidence from the Catholic Encyclopedia that supports your opinion.



AD,

There is as much connection between the Christian choice of Sunday and Mithraism as there is between the fact that the Jews observed Saturday and the derivation of the word in English from Saturn. Had the Church chosen Wednesday for some reason of her own, you would have to alter your charge and cry, “Ah, the day sacred to Wodin”!

Catholics sanctify Sunday by assisting at Holy Mass, by prayer, and by abstaining from unnecessary servile work. You might be interested to know that the institution of Sunday for "holy convocation" is foretold in Zacharais 14:16-19. The worship of the New Jerusalem will center on "the feast of booths". This is the only festival mentioned during the "day of the Lord". One unique feature of this feast was the holy day it observed. Normally the OT Jews kept the 7th day of the week, Saturday as the Sabbath. But the day of rest during the feast of booths was the first day of the week, Sunday Lev 23:33-36. This is amazing truth hidden in Zacharias that helps us understand why the Church worships on Sunday, the first day of the week.

After Christ’s resurrection and the establishment of the Church of the New Law, Christians kept the substance of the Old Law in this matter by still retaining one day out of seven. Yes, the Apostles changed the specification of the day to Sunday. They did it for several reasons and none of them had to do with paganism or worshipping the sun. Sunday, "the Lord’s Day” was set apart by the early Church first in honor the Resurrection of our Lord from the dead on Sunday morning. St.Paul shows that this is the bedrock foundation of our faith when he says, "If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain.” Secondly, the advent of the Holy Ghost gave life to the Church on Pentecost Sunday. Thirdly, the change impressed upon our minds the transition from the Old Law to the New Law. Last, but not least, Saturday had special significance as being dedicated to the completion of God’s creative work. But God’s redemptive work is greater and as a mark of honor, the first day of the week was dedicated to the superior redemptive work of God.

Christ Himself prepared the way for the change of day. The New Testament pays special honor to Sunday.

Hamartano and KFC,

On explaining the difference between the "Son" and the "sun", it doesn't get any better than your apologetics...a thoroughly enjoyable read.

A blessed Christmas to all,

Are you trying to assert that the ancient egyptians didn't exist, that their entire history is some 'vaguely imagined' period before the coming of man?

One could never deny the existence of ancient Egyptians. They were just guilty of what Paul admonished the Romans........

They changed the glory of the uncorruptable God into an image made like to corruptible man and to birds and fourfooted beast and creeping things.

I rather think of Sunday as the first day of the week. The day in which the New Testament believers set aside for a day of public gathering and worship. The beginning of a new week for the people of God that have had a new beginning.... born a new... born again. A day to worship the God of their salvation. Sunday, a day to worship the Son, therefore Sonday.

It is mans tendencies to corrupt the things of God, with vain religion. It is very similar to what is happening in America today. Christmas is an excellent example.

After Christ’s resurrection and the establishment of the Church of the New Law, Christians kept the substance of the Old Law in this matter by still retaining one day out of seven. Yes, the Apostles changed the specification of the day to Sunday. They did it for several reasons and none of them had to do with paganism or worshipping the sun. Sunday, "the Lord’s Day” was set apart by the early Church first in honor the Resurrection of our Lord from the dead on Sunday morning. St.Paul shows that this is the bedrock foundation of our faith when he says, "If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain.” Secondly, the advent of the Holy Ghost gave life to the Church on Pentecost Sunday. Thirdly, the change impressed upon our minds the transition from the Old Law to the New Law. Last, but not least, Saturday had special significance as being dedicated to the completion of God’s creative work. But God’s redemptive work is greater and as a mark of honor, the first day of the week was dedicated to the superior redemptive work of God.Christ Himself prepared the way for the change of day. The New Testament pays special honor to Sunday.

Very well put lulapilgrim. I do have one question, when you use the phrase 'New Law' in what sense do you mean? I do understand the Old and New Testament dispensations, but have never heard it referred to as New Law.

hamartano

if you're gonna insist on proclaiming in kingjamesonics, learneth thou then to discerneth between personal pronouns ('you'/'thou') and the venerable second person possessive ('your'/'thy')...or risk makin even less sense than usual.

Lula posts:


LW posts:



LW posts:

LW, I was addressing the ancient pagan myths arguing against your statment that Christian beliefs aren't taken directly from sun worshipping cults.

It's a crock that the early Christians imported the life of Christ or the Blessed Mother Mary from anything pagan. The theory that this is so or as a parallel is altogether deficient, against all the facts. A further study would show that a critical and comparitive examination, such as Catholic doctrine has had to undergo, leaves these mythological claims devoid of reality while the Christian facts, although attacked from every angle, have emerged and remained unscathed for over 2,000 years.

Pagan mythologies and literature are characterized chiefly by the complete absence of a historical element.

When I say New Law, I mean the New and Everlasting Covenant in the Blood of Christ. When Christ died on the Cross the Old Covenant was voided and the New Covenant was begun. Christ spoke of this at the Last Supper.

No, LW, in honesty, once you mentioned it here, I gave your article a quick look, but haven't really had the time to read it extensively with the links and all. With that said, I haven't simply dismissed what you said here though. This is my honest opinion against the charge that Christianity and specifically the Church and her doctrines are taken from various pagan mythologies.

Even though there may be similiarities between ancient pagan mythologies and Christian doctrines, they aren't to be taken as sufficient proof of derivation. Things Christian are not the fruit of speculations based on ancient pagan ideas. And to depict Christ, the writers of Scripture, the Church, her doctrines and holy days, including Christmas, as copying Mithrism is not history, but to indulge in fancies opposed to all available evidence.

Rather than taking from paganism, the early Christians and the Church challenged all forms of paganism, from Mithrism to that of the Roman variety, and fought them out of existence. Today, we are experiencing a neo-Paganism which is trying to drive all semblances of Christianity from the public square.

But we do say this Jill. The way you put it is almost exactly how I would put it...or at least this part...."sure the 25th isn't Christ's actual birthday but what does it matter?"

Where we'd differ is the part...as long as we celebrate. Celebrate what? Some do celebrate the birth of Christ some have no idea that this is even a birthday celebration at all. People of all walks celebrate it diff ways with diff traditions. It may have started out as a Christian birthday celebration but it's evolved and continues to do so into in some cases far from how it first began.

I have a girlfriend (Catholic) who was setting up her nativity and explaining to her children as she did so the story of the birth of Christ and how we celebrate his birth in the form of CHRISTmas. Listening in was her new sister-in-law who was in her early 20's. She had never known this. She had no idea that was why we celebrated Christmas. I think this is the direction we're going in. Before too long it won't resemble the birth of the baby Jesus in a manger at all.



and to you as well Lula.

all except such fundamental elements as those names used to distinguish days of each week by the church's own calendars.



what name do you use when referring to the day on which christ's last supper is commemorated? how bout the next three days?

for that matter, how did the pope wind up with a mitre on his head rather than something original to the church or divinely revealed (say, a leopard-skin pillbox hat) rather than a remix version of...gasp...the very headress placed on the heads of mithraic priests?

in 'god and empire: jesus against rome, then and now' (2007), credentialed & published biblical archeologist & historian john dominic crossan points out:

"(t)here was a human being in the first century who was called 'Divine,' 'Son of God,' 'God,' and 'God from God,' whose titles were 'Lord,' 'Redeemer,' 'Liberator,' and 'Saviour of the World.'" "(M)ost Christians probably think that those titles were originally created and uniquely applied to Christ. But before Jesus ever existed, all those terms belonged to Caesar Augustus." Crossan cites the adoption of them by the early Christians to apply to Jesus as denying them of Caesar the Augustus. "They were taking the identity of the Roman emperor and giving it to a Jewish peasant. Either that was a peculiar joke and a very low lampoon, or it was what the Romans called majestas and we call high treason."

since none of y'all seem willing or able to answer my earlier question about god's need for a son, i guess this will have to suffice. it wasn't god but caesar who saw a niche and filled it by filius-ing his own imperial self.

only if by 'fought them out of existence' you mean coopted and instutionalized them into perpetuity.