Christian Tradition

the generality it came only in name. Instead, therefore, of the Babylonian goddess being cast out, in too many cases her name only was changed. She was called the Virgin Mary, and, with her child, was worshipped with
the same idolatrous feeling by professing Christians, as formerly by open and avowed Pagans. The consequence was, that when, in AD
325, the Nicene Council was summoned to condemn the heresy of Arius, who denied the true divinity of Christ, that heresy indeed was condemned, but not without the help of men who gave distinct indications
of a desire to put the creature on a level with the Creator, to set the
Virgin-mother side by side with her Son. At the Council of Nice, says
the author of "Nimrod," "The Melchite section"--that is, the representatives of the so-called Christianity of Egypt--"held that
there were three persons in the Trinity--the Father, the Virgin Mary, and Messiah their Son." In reference tothis astounding fact, elicited by the
Nicene Council, Father Newman speaks exultingly of these discussions as tending to the glorification of Mary.

Robbie, this is a long book. But I am thinking you are extrapolating from it purposes which I am not sure at all the author intends.

In this paragraph above notice that Hislop refers to " the true divinity of Christ" which he states was attacked a by Arius who was condemned at the council of Nicene for heresy.

IF Hislop meant to say because of so many virgin mother legends from so many pagan sources we should NOT believe in the divinity of Christ then he would not speak of the denunciation of Arius in this way.

Not doubt, Hislop points out worship of goddesses here and there and how such tales were smuggled into Christiandom to make the Virgin Mary take on this characteristic or worship also.

But he does not say because of this we should NOT believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. He is saying the worship of Mary was an error.

I think at first glance you are extrapolating a meaning that is not intended in this book.

Now I see the man write about the three headed statues and the man with three heads and the threesome themes of many pagan religions. But I do not see him yet say that because of this we should not believe that the Father is God as well as the Son incarnate (above - "the true divinity of Christ" ) as well as the Holy Spirit as God.

In essence what I see is him condemning any three headed idol as representative of God. But I do not see him saying that we should not believe in the Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

I am going to continue reading and ask some people. But so far I think you could with about the same justification, say that because Alexander Hislop researched so much idolatry in Babylon, China, India, Assyria, and Egypt THEREFORE it follows that he was condemning the belief in Jehovah as God.

Do you see the error in this extrapolation? There is much written about the mother and child portraits from pagan religions all over the world. But he does not say that because of this we should reject that Mary WAS the virgin mother of the Christ.

If I am mistaken then refer me to where he does condemn the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus from Mary.

So I think so far that you are extrapolating generalizations not intended by the author. If you think I am mistaken then show me in the book where Alexander Hislop says that the divinity of Christ is a false teaching.

He exposes the attempt to make the Virgin Mary co-equal with the Father and the Son. But the error is not that the Son and the Father are co-equal. It is rather that it is error to try to include Mary in the matter.

Look again

the Nicene Council was summoned to condemn the heresy of Arius, who denied the true divinity of Christ, that heresy indeed was condemned but not without the help of men who gave distinct indications of a desire to put the creature on a level with the Creator, to set the Virgin-mother side by side with her Son.

Originally posted by sonship
Galveston,

Is Robbie Carrobie your Jehovah's Witness friend or am I thinking of someone else ?

Yes we are spritual Brothers....

Originally posted by divegeester
It is possible to enjoy Christmas and to not make our children feel deprived of the joy of the season, without being in the world.

This time of year reminds me of why I find your cult so repellant.

If you like what the world offers...go for it.

Originally posted by galveston75
If you like what the world offers...go for it.

if other faiths can embrace the secular part of Christmas then why can't JWs?

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes we are spritual Brothers....

But it's not likely that either you or him will go to heaven the odds stand @ 49to1 that you will make it to heaven. However the odds of you both going to heaven with your spiritual mate is 8519. The calculations are correct now!

Originally posted by galveston75
If you like what the world offers...go for it.

What has my disdain for your corporations overbearing leadership which denies children the joy of birthdays and Christmas got to do with wanting what the world offers? Can you not allow your children some festive fun without becoming "of the world"? Do you allow them to use the names of the days of the week, or the months of the year? These are mostly pagan in origin.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Thank you Jesus, the spirit of warmth and love you display draws me towards you like a warm fire on a wintry evening. Do you also approve of other pagan festivals? you know sucking little children in with gifts of sweets and other treats in your time honoured fashion? Lets have a look,

ah yes, you celebrate the festival to the goddess Astarte, ...[text shortened]... ts, candy and gifts, how cunning.

Once again, reality is not optional, get a reality check!

I don't celebrate any of these days.

But then why don't we discuss what you mean by "celebrating". I had this conversation with Galveston one Christmas and never got a satisfactory answer; what activities are classed as "celebrating"?

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes we are spritual Brothers....

Howdy brutha!

Originally posted by Suzianne
Let me help you out here, jackass.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/feedback.php

Knock yourself out.

LOL, I mock your references of idiot and jackass, get a reality check! and I have no faith in the redhotpawn system, suffice to state that you have transgressed it.

Originally posted by sonship

the generality it came only in name. Instead, therefore, of the Babylonian goddess being cast out, in too many cases her name only was changed. She was called the Virgin Mary, and, with her child, was worshipped with
the same idolatrous feeling by professing Christians, as formerly by open and avowed Pagans. The consequence was, that when, [b] in ...[text shortened]... ature on a level with the Creator, to set the Virgin-mother side by side with her Son.

The council was presided over by a pagan emperor for political reasons, not a single member of it was inspired by God. what Hyslop actually believes is also irrelevant, the important point is that he has demonstrated, that from antiquity, the concept of a deity, with triune facets has been the norm, The Chaldeans had it, the Hindhus had it and it was thus that it came to Egypt and Greece and only laterally took on the form of polytheism while still retaining its trinitarian origin. The trinity in plurality. These facts are incontrovertible, it is not a product of scripture, it is not a product of revelation, it is of pagan origin as Hislop and others clearly demonstrate. Now you can accept the reality or not, for me, its not optional.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't celebrate any of these days.

But then why don't we discuss what you mean by "celebrating". I had this conversation with Galveston one Christmas and never got a satisfactory answer; what activities are classed as "celebrating"?

Robbie, are you going to start playing the "ignore" game again?

Originally posted by divegeester
Robbie, are you going to start playing the "ignore" game again?

If you post something interesting, i may comment, as it stands, nothing that you have written is of the least bit interesting to me, that is not to say that others do not find your incessant whinging interesting.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you post something interesting, i may comment, as it stands, nothing that you have written is of the least bit interesting to me, that is not to say that others do not find your incessant whinging interesting.

Oh dear. Look it was you who attacked the other Christians here for "celebrating" Christmas. I think it is a fair question to ask you what typical Christmas activities you consider are classed as "celebrating"?

This was what Galveston did when I asked him the same question. Could it be that you actually indulge in some of these "activities" but just don't want to admit it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Robbie Carrobie

The council was presided over by a pagan emperor for political reasons,

I know that it was convened and presided over for political reasons. This does not mean that you can commit a genetic fallacy that no biblical truth was defended and settled because of that reason.

The creed coming out of that council was incomplete. That does not mean it contained no wise decisions of the truth of the New Testament. Even the council in the book of Acts in which James gave the final deciding word, was less than perfect.

And inadequate council presided over for political purposes of uniting the emperors citizens does not mean absolutely no wise decisions on heretical teachings were not exposed and rejected.

not a single member of it was inspired by God.

That is just your opinion. You think Arius was inspired probably, because you agree with him to reject that the Word was God. Because Arianism was rejected you complain that no one was inspired by God in the gathering.

what Hyslop actually believes is also irrelevant,

What Hyslop intends to convey is relevant. And as far as I can see he believed in the divinity of Christ. It may be your suspicion that everyone who believes in the divinity of Christ must have a statue with three heads in their living room from Babylon or Egypt.

The lesson I gather from what I read is that when men only speculate about the triune God and do not experience God they may be prone to be distracted with pagan representations which they think are reminders or sympathetic to a purely objective idea.

I never owned a three headed statue simply because I believe the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God. I simply took the revelation of Scripture and the fellowship of some ancient brothers who were forced to defend that revelation. And in doing so arose at an appropriate expression - "Trinity".

the important point is that he has demonstrated, that from antiquity, the concept of a deity, with triune facets has been the norm, The Chaldeans had it, the Hindhus had it and it was thus that it came to Egypt and Greece and only laterally took on the form of polytheism while still retaining its trinitarian origin.

I can see that you have that point. However, the theme of a threesome, or threefold, or three forms is used many times in paganism. As also you have units of five, or twelve, or ten, or some other number.

You have failed to solicit Alexander Hyslop to condemn the teaching of the divinity of Christ. So obviously he did not go so far as to say the divinity of the Father and the Son was an error.

You did not prove that Alexander Hyslop taught Arius's Christology accurately as opposed to pagan traditions smuggled into Christianity. He plainly told us that Arius's teaching was a heresy. In so doing he condemns Jehovah Witness Christology, which is Arian, to the catagory of heresy.

The trinity in plurality. These facts are incontrovertible, it is not a product of scripture, it is not a product of revelation, it is of pagan origin as Hislop and others clearly demonstrate. Now you can accept the reality or not, for me, its not optional.

It came from the mouth of Jesus that He and His Father would come to His lover and make an abode with him (John 14:23).

"And WE [Father and Son] will come to him and make an abode with him."

That verse was not smuggled over from Egypt Robbie. That is the Greek New Testament under the inspiration of God telling us what Jesus Christ taught.

Must come back latter.

Originally posted by divegeester
Oh dear. Look it was you who attacked the other Christians here for "celebrating" Christmas. I think it is a fair question to ask you what typical Christmas activities you consider are classed as "celebrating"?

This was what Galveston did when I asked him the same question. Could it be that you actually indulge in some of these "activities" but just don't want to admit it.

yeah, thats right, I had a mince pie once!🙄