[email protected]

In a message dated 11/6/03 7:08:53 AM, bunsofaluminum60@... writes:

<< The last book of the New Testament written was Revelations. There is

evidence in the Early Fathers (Origen, Justinian ??? help. Not

exactly sure of the names)...that this book was written before 70

A.D. These Early Fathers are documented to have written before that

date, and they quote Revelations...The first epistle written was from

Paul to Timothy. If I remember rightly, it was written by about 50

A.D. but I don't know the source on that one. >>

The question isn't when they were written, but what was the date of those
used in the "codification" (which still didn't settle it, and the list of books
stayed/stays in flux).

<<The DaVinci Code came across as "The early followers of Jesus loved

him alot, but didn't believe he was resurrected nor that he was

deity. The Council of Nicea made it up and voted on it." That is

bogus. The first Christians believed in the resurrection of Jesus

Christ and spread that news with fervor and boldness.>>

According to books which were copied from books which were already aged
copies when the Catholics who voted got ahold of them?

<<

> -=-The Puritans tried to rename the days of the week, even.

>

> Hadn't heard that! Do you have a reference? >>

Hadn't heard about the alleged Puritan attempt to rename the days of the week.

<<You hadn't HEARD that Sunday was named for the Sun? Really...Monday

for the Moon? It's pretty common knowledge. Dunno where I first heard

it. Some time, as a child, I imagine.>>

Yes, I knew all that.

Did you answer the wrong question on purpose!?

<<Sunday=Lord's Day; Monday=First Day; Tuesday=Second Day; Oden's Day ;)

=midweek; Thursday=Fourth day??? Friday=fifth day, I suppose.

Saturday=Sabbath. I got THIS from historical fiction LOL >>

Oh.

<<since the other weekdays are named after gods, where do YOU suppose

the names Sunday and Monday came from?

>>

Those religions all grew out of sky- and light-worshipping religions. So did
Christianity.

<<> What's being discussed here as Christian holidays and pagan

holidays is

> dealing just with England/English/American stuff.


<<So, the Roman Catholic church didn't have Hallowe'en in England?>>

It was a church holiday, as with ALL the church calendar dates--tons of
Saints' Days. The church holidy had nothing to do with scary graveyard "ooooh"
candles in turnips stuff, but it was in the same season, so already existing
traditions were set on the same day every year, which was named by the church
calendar.

Hallowe'en is All Hallow's Eve(ning).
Like Christmas Eve is Christmas Eve.

Used to be a day started at sundown the day before. The day ended at dark,
not at midnight. So the evening of one's birthday was the eve of one's
birthday, the night before.

The "e'en" which has pretty much dropped its apostrophe (still required in
spelling bees in the 1960's) is short for evening, abbreviated to the way it was
pronunced when the spelling settled.

Ireland was Catholic, and is, but there were still some local things that
people did which the church adapted instead of banning.

<<For some of it at least, the traditions began

after Christianity came to an area...not already there and made into

Christian holidays by the church...>>

Even so, it wouldn't mean the church made the decisions or that they were
celebrating something churchish.

It's traditional in northern New Mexico to make biscochitos at Christmas.
They're anise-seed cookies made with brandy. They have nothing to do with
religion, but they're always there at Christmas dinners and Christmas sales and
such. There are lots of things like that. Luminarias and little fires on
Christmas eve. There's an adaptation of a local Indian tradition to build
cross-piece pyres of split cedar, two sticks one way, two the other, and so on, about
two feet high. They're lit at dark on Christmas Eve. I think it was done
before the Catholics came, and since it was done on the darkest night, they
attached it to Christmas and justified it (blessed it, kind of) that way. It's
still done. We lived across the Rio Grande from Santa Clara Pueblo, and on
Christmas Eve if it was still there would be dozens of straight-up plumes of black
smoke all at once. It looked COOL.

It's Christmas tradition, but it isn't "Christian in origin."

Sandra

Sandra

Tia Leschke

>
>Ireland was Catholic, and is,

And is? Isn't that what all the fighting is about over there? Catholics
versus Protestants?
Tia

Fetteroll

on 11/6/03 4:39 PM, Tia Leschke at leschke@... wrote:

> And is? Isn't that what all the fighting is about over there? Catholics
> versus Protestants?

From what I understand it's those who own the land and hold the power versus
those who don't. They happen to be Protestants and Catholics, English
descent versus Irish descent. Or is that too simplistic?

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/6/03 3:47:21 PM, leschke@... writes:

<<
And is? Isn't that what all the fighting is about over there? Catholics
versus Protestants? >>

yeah but the Protestants are wrong.


::ducking::


Sandra

Tia Leschke

>
>
> > And is? Isn't that what all the fighting is about over there? Catholics
> > versus Protestants?
>
> From what I understand it's those who own the land and hold the power versus
>those who don't. They happen to be Protestants and Catholics, English
>descent versus Irish descent. Or is that too simplistic?

Oh yeah, I knew it was more than religion. I was just taking exception to
Ireland being considered (mainly) Catholic.
Tia

Tia Leschke

>
>And is? Isn't that what all the fighting is about over there? Catholics
>versus Protestants? >>
>
>yeah but the Protestants are wrong.
>
>
>::ducking::

Being neither, I'll decline to throw the first rotten tomato.
Tia

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/6/2003 8:42:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
From what I understand it's those who own the land and hold the power versus
those who don't. They happen to be Protestants and Catholics, English
descent versus Irish descent. Or is that too simplistic?
*************************************
Here's another simplified version: Ireland was under the thumb of England
for hundreds of years. The Irish people were forever trying to get their
country back, and all the English out, warring constantly. There was finally a sort
of truce/decision made in (I believe?) the 1940's, in which most of the
country would no longer be ruled by England, but in turn part of Northern Ireland
(Ulster) would remain under England's rule, part of the United Kingdom. It was
a bittersweet victory for the Irish, because although they were happy to get
the majority of their country back, England still had a piece of it, and the
Irish people (mostly Catholic) want the WHOLE country back and the English
(mostly Protestants) OUT. That is why the warring is centered on Ulster and
mostly, Belfast. It is a religious war, a race war, a poor against the rich
war...As long as England holds a piece of Ireland as theirs, it will probably be a
never ending war. Each year in Belfast the English/Irish Protestants hold an
"Orange" parade. And every year, there's usually another battle sparked by it.

Nancy B. in WV


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Danielle Conger

If a humble observer may interject...

The Irish thing has been going on for hundreds of years. As a colonial
power, England ruled Ireland much worse than it ever did Scotland. James I
(came to the throne after Elizabeth I) was actually a Scottish King prior
to coming to England, so he united the two for the first time under common
rule.

Ireland never had the rights or the political or intellectual power that
the Scots had. But, the Irish protestants were far more palatable to the
Anglican English than the Catholics, and they used this position to try to
gain more power. The protestants were wealthier, held more land, and were
always the ones who had power in the few times England allowed Ireland to
practice some self-rule. Once England went protestant (James's rule was
never neat because he was Catholic, which is what caused such problems when
his heir Charles I took over; Cromwell and the Puritans ousted him,
Catholic France tried to help him, yadda, yadda). Religion in Europe is as
political as theological, historically speaking anyway.

This is the long-winded way of saying that the Protestants sided with
England in order to gain power, and England accepted them because they were
Protestant. Catholics have always been second-class citizens, not allowed
to hold political office, etc. Irish Catholics viewed the Protestants as
internal colonizers who were just as bad as the English.

--danielle, whose grasp of both history and religion come by way of literature

Heidi

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/6/03 7:08:53 AM, bunsofaluminum60@h... writes:
>
> << The last book of the New Testament written was Revelations.
There is
>
> evidence in the Early Fathers (Origen, Justinian ??? help. Not
>
> exactly sure of the names)...that this book was written before 70
>
> A.D. These Early Fathers are documented to have written before that
>
> date, and they quote Revelations...The first epistle written was
from
>
> Paul to Timothy. If I remember rightly, it was written by about 50
>
> A.D. but I don't know the source on that one. >>
>
> The question isn't when they were written, but what was the date of
those
> used in the "codification" (which still didn't settle it, and the
list of books
> stayed/stays in flux).

I would say that the main discrepancy about what books are in the
canon is between having the apocrypha or not. Books like The Gospel
of Thomas and others have long been eliminated from contending. As
far as I know, even high critics don't put much weight on the
peripheral books that never were in the running...

The books that "made it," even though the canon may have been
solidified in ??? date, were part of the literature of the early
Church from the beginning. The Gospel of John has original fragments
that date back to the 1st century, within the lifetime of John
himself. The Gnostic Gospels OLDEST documents date to the 3rd
century. If there's a discrepancy between documents about Jesus'
life, and one of the documents is older...the older document is
trusted over the newer one. That's how it is with all ancient
writings.


>
> <<The DaVinci Code came across as "The early followers of Jesus
loved
>
> him alot, but didn't believe he was resurrected nor that he was
>
> deity. The Council of Nicea made it up and voted on it." That is
>
> bogus. The first Christians believed in the resurrection of Jesus
>
> Christ and spread that news with fervor and boldness.>>
>
> According to books which were copied from books which were already
aged
> copies when the Catholics who voted got ahold of them?
>

One little fact we must keep in mind: the copies of Biblical
documents, though there are scads of them, have little to NO
differences between them. When there is a difference, it will be in
something like a marginal note, never in major doctrines and
teachings. IOW, that 1st century fragment of John's Gospel reads just
exactly like one from the 5th century, and ancient church copies from
the 12th century as well, show no errors of any magnitude. The words
of the Bible were copied with great care by people who loved them.
Any objective scholar will acknowledge that Biblical documentation is
among the best, if not THE best, in existence.


>
> > -=-The Puritans tried to rename the days of the week, even.
>
> >
>
> > Hadn't heard that! Do you have a reference? >>
>
> Hadn't heard about the alleged Puritan attempt to rename the days
of the week.
>
> <<You hadn't HEARD that Sunday was named for the Sun?
Really...Monday
>
> for the Moon? It's pretty common knowledge. Dunno where I first
heard
>
> it. Some time, as a child, I imagine.>>
>
> Yes, I knew all that.
>
> Did you answer the wrong question on purpose!?
>

No. Misread your question/statement.


> <<Sunday=Lord's Day; Monday=First Day; Tuesday=Second Day; Oden's
Day ;)
>
> =midweek; Thursday=Fourth day??? Friday=fifth day, I suppose.
>
> Saturday=Sabbath. I got THIS from historical fiction LOL >>
>
> Oh.
>
> <<since the other weekdays are named after gods, where do YOU
suppose
>
> the names Sunday and Monday came from?
>
> >>
>
> Those religions all grew out of sky- and light-worshipping
religions. So did
> Christianity.
>

> <<For some of it at least, the traditions began
>
> after Christianity came to an area...not already there and made
into
>
> Christian holidays by the church...>>
>
> Even so, it wouldn't mean the church made the decisions or that
they were
> celebrating something churchish.

Okay, but my point was to try and refute the notion which is widely
taught, that "all holidays celebrated originally by the Catholic
church have their origins in pagan traditions." If not refute, at
least point out that there is scholarship out there that says "No.
The holidays celebrated in the Catholic church were started after
Christianity came into a given region."



> It's traditional in northern New Mexico to make biscochitos at
Christmas.
> They're anise-seed cookies made with brandy. They have nothing to
do with
> religion, but they're always there at Christmas dinners and
Christmas sales and
> such. There are lots of things like that. Luminarias and little
fires on
> Christmas eve. There's an adaptation of a local Indian tradition
to build
> cross-piece pyres of split cedar, two sticks one way, two the
other, and so on, about
> two feet high. They're lit at dark on Christmas Eve. I think it
was done
> before the Catholics came, and since it was done on the darkest
night, they
> attached it to Christmas and justified it (blessed it, kind of)
that way. It's
> still done. We lived across the Rio Grande from Santa Clara
Pueblo, and on
> Christmas Eve if it was still there would be dozens of straight-up
plumes of black
> smoke all at once. It looked COOL.
>
> It's Christmas tradition, but it isn't "Christian in origin."


sounds very cool...

blessings, HeidiC
>
> Sandra
>
> Sandra

Shyrley

CelticFrau@... wrote:

>In a message dated 11/6/2003 8:42:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>fetteroll@... writes:
>>From what I understand it's those who own the land and hold the power versus
>those who don't. They happen to be Protestants and Catholics, English
>descent versus Irish descent. Or is that too simplistic?
>*************************************
>Here's another simplified version: Ireland was under the thumb of England
>for hundreds of years. The Irish people were forever trying to get their
>country back, and all the English out, warring constantly. There was finally a sort
>of truce/decision made in (I believe?) the 1940's, in which most of the
>country would no longer be ruled by England, but in turn part of Northern Ireland
>(Ulster) would remain under England's rule, part of the United Kingdom. It was
>a bittersweet victory for the Irish, because although they were happy to get
>the majority of their country back, England still had a piece of it, and the
>Irish people (mostly Catholic) want the WHOLE country back and the English
>(mostly Protestants) OUT. That is why the warring is centered on Ulster and
>mostly, Belfast. It is a religious war, a race war, a poor against the rich
>war...As long as England holds a piece of Ireland as theirs, it will probably be a
>never ending war. Each year in Belfast the English/Irish Protestants hold an
>"Orange" parade. And every year, there's usually another battle sparked by it.
>
>Nancy B. in WV
>
>
>
Yup. I was raised in the South of Ireland. The problem is the people in
northern Ireland are just as 'Irish' as the people in southern Ireland.
Most of them are actually decsended from the original inhabitants as
well as the scots and English immigrants from the 1500's and 1600's. And
the southern Irish have a mixed descent from original, Norse, English,
scots etc etc.
But the grudge continues adn the southern Irish refer to those in Ulster
as 'English' when they ain't.
It would be like the English getting narky about anyone of Norman,
Saxon, Norse, Roman, Angles etc descent and wanting them to leave
England. The Protestants of Ulster want their country to remain
independant of Eire and those in Eire want the country to be one. Both
are worried about the religion of the other despite the fact that they
are all meant to be Christians and 'love thy neighbour'. When I lived in
Dublin (raised Catholic) some of the preists would be preaching that
Protestants would *make* the catholics have abortions and use condoms.
During a brief stay in Belfast I found people saying that the catholics
would ban contraception and outbreed them.
I'd ban religion for starters....

Shyrley

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/7/03 6:54:01 AM, bunsofaluminum60@... writes:

<< If there's a discrepancy between documents about Jesus'

life, and one of the documents is older...the older document is

trusted over the newer one. That's how it is with all ancient

writings.

>>

That's not how historiography works in general. A newer biography is often
trusted over an older one, and history is written for specific purposes and
different purposes by different historians, so you get different slants.

<<I would say that the main discrepancy about what books are in the

canon is between having the apocrypha or not. >>

That's a modern view. A historical view needs to see things all along the
way. There are many Bible-worshipping protestants (Baptist and thereabout) who
have no idea there are other books in the Catholic Bible, or how they got in,
or why they got out.

<<Any objective scholar will acknowledge that Biblical documentation is

among the best, if not THE best, in existence.>>

A scholar who raises a question will show he's not objective?

<<Okay, but my point was to try and refute the notion which is widely

taught, that "all holidays celebrated originally by the Catholic

church have their origins in pagan traditions." >>

What I think people mean when they say that is that the holidays celebrated
in the United States have pagan origins concerning the traditions with which
they are celebrated. And the only generally "celebrated religious holidays"
here outside Thanksgiving and 4th of July are Christmas and Easter. Valentine's
Day was a medieval Saint's Day (most days were, and still are in the Catholic
church and for purposes of baby-naming and the particulars of the daily
mass), and Hallowe'en, but the traditions don't have to do with church or Jesus,
and they're not considered "religious holidays" in the U.S. New Year's Eve has
nothing but drinking, and kissing at midnight.

Looking at all the history of religion through a 2003 American Protestant
lens is too distorting. It's not at all objective.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/7/2003 9:17:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,
shyrley@... writes:
During a brief stay in Belfast I found people saying that the catholics
would ban contraception and outbreed them.
I'd ban religion for starters....
*******************************************
Well, technically contraception has already been banned by the Catholic
Church from the time dependable contraception came into being.

BTW, this is something I heard white Americans saying about Mexican
immigrants while living in CA. That CA will be taken over by Mexicans because they're
all Catholic and they don't use contraception.

Nancy B. in WV


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 11-7-2003 11:01:52 AM Mountain Standard Time,
CelticFrau@... writes:
BTW, this is something I heard white Americans saying about Mexican
immigrants while living in CA. That CA will be taken over by Mexicans because they're
all Catholic and they don't use contraception.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This always cracks me up, considering California WAS Mexico. We have to use
the term *Californiano* in dh's family instead of Mexican ~ to remind others
they were there first <bg>

diana,
The wackiest widow westriver...
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The
latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to
hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." ~ Albert
Einstein


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Heidi

--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/7/03 6:54:01 AM, bunsofaluminum60@h... writes:
>
> << If there's a discrepancy between documents about Jesus'
>
> life, and one of the documents is older...the older document is
>
> trusted over the newer one. That's how it is with all ancient
>
> writings.
>
> >>
>
> That's not how historiography works in general. A newer biography
is often
> trusted over an older one, and history is written for specific
purposes and
> different purposes by different historians, so you get different
slants.

If you wanted to find out about Grant's life, would you rather read a
biography written today by a historian who researched Grant's life,
or would you read Grant's memoirs?

BUT! what if something came to light that claimed to be a portion of
Grant's memoirs that had never been seen before, but mentions things
that dispute all other primary sources? Would the historian trust the
newer stuff that goes against all other sources, including the
memoirs from the pen of the man, or would he let the newer stuff go
as not reliable?

What if Grant never wrote anything? Maybe someone close to him, who
saw what happened, would be a reliable primary source? If a newer
biography on Grant were published, and the historian cited sources
that have been deemed unreliable by authoritative Grant scholars?
What if the new biography mentions many events that are nowhere else
mentioned? Do you believe the new biography if it doesn't check out
with sources closer to the actual man?

IMO, the older documents (closer to the source) are going to be
closer to the true events, and thus more trustworthy.


> <<I would say that the main discrepancy about what books are in the
>
> canon is between having the apocrypha or not. >>
>
> That's a modern view. A historical view needs to see things all
along the
> way. There are many Bible-worshipping protestants (Baptist and
thereabout) who
> have no idea there are other books in the Catholic Bible, or how
they got in,
> or why they got out.

Your point? I'm confident that I don't fall in the category of "have
no idea"

> <<Any objective scholar will acknowledge that Biblical
documentation is
>
> among the best, if not THE best, in existence.>>
>
> A scholar who raises a question will show he's not objective?

absolutely not. There's nothing wrong with raising questions AT ALL.
Objectivity would be searching all sources, both higher criticism
(which group disbelieves in supernatural or miraculous)and the
scholars who do allow for the supernatural or miraculous. (don't know
if that group has a name or label for their methods.)

If a researcher wants answers to his questions, best ask everyone he
can find who might know anything about the subject, basing his
research criteria on quality of scholarship NOT on doubting OR
believing that the Bible is reliable. Even scholars who are inclined
to the higher criticism camp, acknowledge the extremely high level of
quality of Biblical documentation.


> <<Okay, but my point was to try and refute the notion which is
widely
>
> taught, that "all holidays celebrated originally by the Catholic
>
> church have their origins in pagan traditions." >>
>
> What I think people mean when they say that is that the holidays
celebrated
> in the United States have pagan origins concerning the traditions
with which
> they are celebrated.

You mean, "The things we do traditionally TO celebrate these
holidays." Right? Like lighting the Yule log or whatever...???

Okay, I think I get that now. :\ I think. But there still is a panic
in evangelicaldom about following practices that originate in pagan
tradition. They don't want to do things that are not commanded nor
recommended in the Bible, but it is a misguided attempt at Christian
living, IMO.



And the only generally "celebrated religious holidays"
> here outside Thanksgiving and 4th of July are Christmas and
Easter.

Well, T'giving is a religious feast day, in that giving thanks to God
was part of the intent of The First Thanksgiving, but it is also
American, not Catholic, in origin. Goes to show, the puritans weren't
against feasting and celebrating, per se. Just didn't like the
Catholic versions of things.

and of course 4th of July is a United States thing, not universal.

Valentine's
> Day was a medieval Saint's Day (most days were, and still are in
the Catholic
> church and for purposes of baby-naming and the particulars of the
daily
> mass), and Hallowe'en, but the traditions don't have to do with
church or Jesus,

I disagree. If a day is named after a saint...well, isn't a saint a
part of the Church? Aren't "All Saints" a part of the church? Then,
Valentine's and Hallowe'en have to do with the church. And the church
has to do with Jesus...

blessings, HeidiC


> Looking at all the history of religion through a 2003 American
Protestant
> lens is too distorting. It's not at all objective.
>
> Sandra

The Scanlons

> Well, technically contraception has already been banned by the Catholic
> Church from the time dependable contraception came into being.
>

Actually, the Catholic Church has never ever ever accepted contraception,
even when it was really lousy (still is...all those nasty hormones and
things!). None of the other Christian religions accepted it, either, until
the 1930s. Martin Luther and John Calvin and some other big name protestant
reformer were all absolutely against it.