Aaron's Beard

Psalm 133 A song of ascents. Of David. 1 How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity! 2 It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron's beard, down upon the collar of his robes. 3 It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the LORD bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.

Modern Translation Why can't we all just get along??!!

Thursday, April 07, 2005

About Moses

Who was Moses?



I haven't really researched this thoroughly... but remember reading somewhere that Moses was either the son of... or the very first pharoah to promote monotheism. The god was the sun god and he was the first to not allow himself to be worshipped, but rather looked to the sun god. There's more to this research. I'll let you know as I discover more.


Akhenaten=Amenhotep=Moses?



Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV, was king of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty and reigned from 1375 to 1358 B.C. Called the "religious revolutionary, " he is the earliest known creator of a new religion. The cult he founded broke with Egypt's traditional polytheism and focused its worship on a single deity, the sun god Aten.

Akhenaten was married to the beautiful Queen Nefertiti and was the father of King Tutankhamun.



Moses and The Israelites

Found at GreatDreams.com

One of the most troubling problems for biblical archaeologists was the lack of archaeological evidence for Moses and the Israelites in Egypt. Prior to the Exodus, there were hundreds of thousands of Israelites in Egypt, yet little or no evidence of their existence has been found, even though the sojourn is recorded as lasting for centuries in the Scriptures!

Aaron is an older brother of Moses, a Levite and the first high priest. The Islamic sources have very scant details of Aaron, but from the Bible, we know that Aaron was the eldest son of Amram and Jochebed, a daughter of Levi (Exodus 6:20). Aaron is three years older than Moses but younger than Miriam (Exodus 2:1,4; 7:7).

The biblical chronology dates the birth of Moses to around 1527 BC. In the new chronology of Egypt, the pharaoh on the throne of Egypt was Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty.

Ar: Musa, Heb: Mosheh ( ). Corresponds to the Biblical Moses who brought the Taurat (Torah). Moses is called the Speaker with God in Islam; the name of Moses occurs 136 times in the Qur'an, the highest among all the prophets.

Artapanus writes that a pharaoh named Palmanothes was persecuting the Israelites. His daughter Merris adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to be called prince Mousos. Merris married a pharaoh Khenephres. Prince Mousos grew up to administer the land on behalf of this pharaoh. He led a military campaign against the Ethiopians who were invading Egypt; however, upon his return, Khenephres grew jealous of his popularity. Mousos then fled to Arabia to return when Khenephres died and lead the Israelites to freedom. It may be only a Mosaic story with similarities to the biblical account, yet the only pharaoh with the name Khenephres was Sobekhotep IV, who took the name Khaneferre at his coronation. He reigned soon after Neferhotep I of the 13th Dynasty, as mentioned above, the pharaoh in power at Moses' birth!

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews', with access to very old manuscripts and writing in AD 93, also mentioned Moses' Ethiopian or Kushite war. Here, Moses led an Egyptian army down the Nile valley, past the Third Cataract, deep into Kush (modern Ethiopia). In the British Museum is a stela (page 261, fig. 289) which tells of a 13th Dynasty pharaoh undertaking a campaign south into the region of Kush. That pharaoh is none other than Khaneferre, the step-father of Moses according to Artapanus. He is the only 13th Dynasty pharaoh who is recorded as having campaigned into Upper Nubia or Ethiopia. At Kerma on the Nile an official Egyptian building was found, outside of which was discovered a statue of Khaneferre, so dating this building to the 13th Dynasty. This is many hundreds of kilometers south of the known boundaries of 13th Dynasty Egypt and may have been a governor's residence'. It would have been built to secure Egyptian interests in the area after the military victory of the Egyptians led by Moses, as this was the only Kushite war at that time with Egypt. As Moses was a prince of Egypt and was 40 years old according to the Bible when he fled to Arabia, he could certainly have led this military operation - an Israelite leading an Egyptian army to war! If this part of Josephus' account is true then it adds weight to the rest of his account of the life of Moses and also gives us some firmer evidence of the existence of this charismatic leader!

Moral Government or Pelegianism?

I was indoctrinated in a ministry that taught a form of theology called Moral Government. The basic tenants match Pelegianism. Pelegius was a 15th century monk who taught an extreme form of works that negated one of the main messages of the Bible - Grace.



Here is an article on the topic written by Greg Robertson in 1981.



http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/1082/moral.htm

What is Kosher?

A coworker who is a Kosher Jew has prompted this question. He never can eat any of the lunches provided for conferences and meetings. He asked an odd question today. He seemed interested in the smoked turkey wrap we had for lunch... but he asked if it had cheese on it. I looked at my wrap and answered affirmatively. He turned up his nose at it. Tonight I looked up kosher and kashrut and found out that one of the main kosher laws is that you cannot mix meet and dairy. The dairy cannot have even touched the meat or else they contaminate each other. Furthermore, kosher Jews must have two sets of cooking utensils... one for dairy and one for meat. The two cannot ever be mixed up. Utensils that have touched meat may not touch dairy. Dish washers may not have both meat and dairy dirtied dishes in them. One must wait 3 to 6 hours after eating dairy before eating meat. Kinda strict, eh? There's more rules... maybe I'll write about them later.

Pagan Christianity - A book review

I read a book last year called, "Pagan Christianity". It approaches many of the questions I have always asked and could never get a straight answer on. No one seemed to want to think about the possibility that there is no such thing as an altar call in the Bible. And... where the hell did communion come from anyway? What the hell is hell? The tithe... all the NT passages I read seem to be fitting the tithe into the lump of items called "the law" and that generosity of spirit is the law of the spirit. The book I am reading seems to have a large focus on the practice of preaching from a pulpit and having trained teachers leading a mute and tethered congregation. Tethered because they are not allowed to interact, ask questions, even sit on the same level as the teacher. The claim from the author (with much historical and text book support) is that the early church was nothing like the church that developed in rome. The early church was more like a community of hellenistic believers. More on Jewish Hellenism later.

A linked article on Communion

I found a christian confirmation on my suspicions about what communion is supposed to be like. This also confirms to me that the source of the other forms of wafers and wine and ritualism and holy garb may well have come from mithraism or other sun god type worship!

Here's the link: http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=119&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Sept. 11th was Christ's B-Day?!

According to www.truthortradition.com all logical evidence points to September 11 as Christ's birthday. I find that somewhat eerie... don't you? Hopefully, just a coincidence that the date coincides with 9-11-01. Numerologists could have a blast with that one! Other interesting possibilities are brought out in this article confirming Dec. 25th borrowing from the Sun God celebration. Other interesting facts like the wise men magii) visiting Jesus after his birth and not being at the manger. The possibility that they were zoroastrians from the far east who looked forward to a coming Redeemer, a prophet to be sent by God to save mankind. You may want to read the entire article at: TruthorTradition.com. As for me... It's time to do some research on zoroastrianism!

Christian Apologetics

Here is an article from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (www.carm.org) countering the notion that christians borrowed from mithraism:

Doesn't the religion of Mithra prove that Christianity is false?

Some critics of Christianity teach that the Christian religion was not based upon divine revelation but that it borrowed from pagan sources, Mithra being one of them. They assert that the figure of Mithra has many commonalities with Jesus, too common to be coincidence.

Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Therefore, the critics maintain that Christianity borrowed its concepts from the Mithra cult. But is this the case? Can it be demonstrated that Christianity borrowed from the cult of Mithra as it developed its theology?

First of all, Christianity does not need any outside influence to derive any of its doctrines. All the doctrines of Christianity exists in the Old Testament where we can see the prophetic teachings of Jesus as the son of God (Zech. 12:10), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), was crucified (Psalm 22), the blood atonement (Lev. 17:11), rose from the dead (Psalm 16:10), and salvation by faith (Hab. 2:4). Also, the writers of the gospels were eyewitnesses (or directed by eyewitnesses as were Mark and Luke) who accurately represented the life of Christ. So, what they did was write what Jesus taught as well as record the events of His life, death, and resurrection. In other words, they recorded history, actual events and had no need of fabrication or borrowing.

There will undoubtedly be similarities in religious themes given the agrarian culture. Remember, an agriculturally based society, as was the people of the ancient Mediterranean area, will undoubtedly develop theological themes based upon observable events, i.e., the life, death, and seeming resurrection of life found in crops, in cattle, and in human life. It would only be natural for similar themes to unfold since they are observed in nature and since people created gods related to nature. But, any reading of the Old Testament results in observing the intrusion of God into Jewish history as is recorded in miracles and prophetic utterances. Add to that the incredible archaeological evidence verifying Old Testament cities and events and you have a document based on historical fact instead of mythical fabrication. Furthermore, it is from these Old Testament writings that the New Testament themes were developed.

As you can see (refer to scripture chart at http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm), there is no need for any of the Christian writers to borrow from anything other than the Old Testament source in order to establish any Christian doctrine concerning Jesus. If the argument that pagan mythologies predated Christian teachings and therefore Christianity borrowed from them is true, then it must also be truth that the pagan religions borrowed from the Jewish religion because it is older than they are! Given that all of the Christian themes are found in the Old Testament and the Old Testament was begun around 2000 B.C. and completed around 400 B.C., we can then conclude that these pagan religions actually borrowed from Jewish ideas found in the Old Testament. Think about it, the idea of a blood sacrifice and a covering for sin is found in the first three chapters of Genesis when God covered Adam and Eve with animals skins and prophesied the coming of the Messiah.

Furthermore, those who wrote about Jesus in the New Testament were Jews (or under the instruction of Jews) who were devoted to the legitimacy and inspiration of the Old Testament scriptures and possessed a strong disdain for pagan religions. It would have been blasphemous for them to incorporate pagan sources into what they saw as the fulfillment of the sacred Old Testament scriptures concerning the Messiah. Also, since they were writing about Jesus, they were writing based upon what He taught: truth, love, honesty, integrity, etc. Why then would they lie and make up stories and suffer great persecution, hardships, ridicule, arrest, beatings, and death all for known lies and fabrications from paganism? It doesn't make sense.

At best, Mithraism only had some common themes with Christianity (and Judaism) which were recorded in both the Old and New Testaments. What is far more probable is that as Mithraism developed, it started to adopt Christian concepts.

"Allegations of an early Christian dependence on Mithraism have been rejected on many grounds. Mithraism had no concept of the death and resurrection of its god and no place for any concept of rebirth -- at least during its early stages...During the early stages of the cult, the notion of rebirth would have been foreign to its basic outlook...Moreover, Mithraism was basically a military cult. Therefore, one must be skeptical about suggestions that it appealed to nonmilitary people like the early Christians."1

What is more probable is that with the explosive nature of the Christian church in the 1st and 2nd century, other cult groups started to adapt themselves to take advantage of some of the teachings found in Christianity.

"While there are several sources that suggest that Mithraism included a notion of rebirth, they are all post-Christian. The earliest...dates from the end of the second century A.D."2

Therefore, even though there are similarities between Christianity and Mithraism, it is up to the critics to prove that one borrowed from the other. But, considering that the writers of the New Testament were Jews who shunned pagan philosophies and that the Old Testament has all of the themes found in Christianity, it is far more probable that if any borrowing was done, it was done by the pagan religions that wanted to emulate the success of Christianity.
____________

1. R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World" as quoted in Baker's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Norman Geisler; Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1999, p. 492.

2. Wilson, Bill, compiled by; The Best of Josh McDowell: A Ready Defense; Nashville, Tenn., Thomas Nelson Publishers; 1993, p. 167.

Origen

Origen is one of the very earliest Church Fathers, living in the Second Century AD. Origen lived at a time before Christian theology was spelled out, and he was essentially the first Christian theologian. We have Origen to thank for our understanding of Christ's dual nature (fully man, fully God) as well as our understanding of the Trinity. If it hadn't been for Origen, the Christian religion would be very, very different than it is now; it may not even be recognizeable. Things that we take for granted as a "lowest common denominator" of Christian theology, Origen developed.

Below is an article about Origen. Stay tuned for more thoughts and exploration on the topic of church history and development. I want to understand the judaistic form of christianity that existed before Origen. I have been inundated with hellenistic thought and influence from society. I am not sure it's even possible to understand pre-hellenistic christianity. I'm gonna give it my best shot though.

Origen: Friend or Foe?
He has been called the father of Christian biblical exegesis, the first systematic theologian … and a heretic. How should we assess his legacy today? by John R. Franke

Few figures in church history have stimulated the level of debate and controversy that surrounds Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185 - ca. 254). To some, he was a brilliant intellectual as well as a passionately committed disciple of Christ, the most influential and seminal thinker in the early church. Others regard him as a dangerous heretic whose interest in philosophical speculation unleashed a string of teachings that stand in stark opposition to orthodox Christian faith (p. 2). Still others affirm the truth of both positions.

As a Christian, Origen believed that the Bible was the Word of God, and as such it occupied a central place in his life and thought, the touchstone for all his beliefs. Indeed, one of the major concerns of Origen's work was to assist Christians facing the intellectual challenges of the third century by providing scriptural answers to the questions posed by Hellenistic philosophy and culture.

In spite of Origen's intentions and clear commitment to biblical authority, however, many believe that his use of Scripture compromised that authority, providing fertile conditions for the germination and growth of heresy.

Cultured scholar, would-be martyr

Young Origen grew up as both a learned Greek and a devoted Christian. Born in either 185 or 186 in Alexandria, Origen was raised in a Christian home. His father was most likely a prosperous and influential man, who provided his son with an education that was both Hellenistic and Christian. This dual education undoubtedly caused some internal tension in Origen as he sought to reconcile his commitment to Christian faith and the Bible with the classic teachings of ancient Greece.

From the perspective of Hellenism, Christianity was little more than another barbarous superstition, and the Bible simply an inferior collection of texts unworthy (by Greek aesthetic standards) of serious consideration.

Origen was not the first to grapple with this tension, and he was able to learn from previous Jewish and Christian engagements with Hellenism. Indeed, as a student at the catechetical school in Alexandria, Origen likely studied under Clement of Alexandria, who was well known for his attempts to relate Christian teaching to Greek philosophical thought.

When Origen was about seventeen, his father was arrested during an outbreak of persecution and executed for his profession of Christian faith. According to tradition, Origen intended to turn himself in to the authorities and join his father in martyrdom but was prevented from doing so by his mother, who hid his clothes and thus prevented him from leaving the house.

Later, he is said to have written to his father in prison exhorting him not to turn from the martyr's calling for the sake of his family. Many Christians fled Alexandria to escape the fate of Origen's father, including Clement, who had been the head of the catechetical school.

The combination of Origen's clear Christian commitment in the face of persecution and his growing reputation as an outstanding thinker led Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, to entrust him with the leadership of the school at the age of eighteen.

Teen dean

During his tenure, the pursuit and execution of Christians in Alexandria continued, and Origen was under threat on numerous occasions, living the life of a wanted man and enduring the martyrdom of several of his students. In addition to these pressures, Origen lived an austere life characterized by extreme self-discipline and ascetic practices, including his own self-castration in accordance with a literal reading of Matthew 19:12.

In the midst of all this, Origen was immensely productive, teaching, preaching, traveling, and writing scholarly works concerning theology, philosophy, apologetics, and the Bible.

He was significantly aided in his literary output by Ambrose, a wealthy convert impressed by Origen's intellectual abilities. Ambrose provided Origen with a trained staff of stenographers, copyists, and calligraphers, as well as funds for the publication of his works. The stenographers wrote down Origen's words in shorthand as he lectured and turned their notes over to the copyists, who produced a manuscript for him to revise. The calligraphers then reproduced as many copies as were needed in a clear and elegant hand.

Ambrose constantly exerted pressure on Origen to make full use of the resources he had provided, leading Origen to refer to his patron as "God's taskmaster" in his life. This patronage and "encouragement" enabled Origen to compose rapidly, and he authored hundreds of manuscripts, becoming one of the most prolific writers of the ancient world. Unfortunately, the majority of these works have not survived.

Among his many extant works, two are of particular importance. On First Principles is a systematic account of Origen's theological and philosophical positions concerning God, creation, Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, and salvation. One of the great classics of Christian thought, it constitutes both a philosophical discussion on the relation of God to the world and an attempt to develop a coherent set of theological teachings. It may be the first formal attempt at systematic theology in the history of the church.

The second work, Against Celsus, is a detailed defense of Christian faith against the critique of the Roman philosopher Celsus, in which Origen attempts to demonstrate the superiority of the teachings of the Bible versus Greek philosophy. This thorough point-by-point response to Celsus made an important contribution to the growing cogency and respectability of Christian faith in the ancient world. These works effectively refuted the contention that Christianity was simply another superstitious folk religion and helped to establish the intellectual credentials of the faith.

Spoiling the Egyptians

While Origen appreciated a great deal of Plato and the Greek philosophical tradition, he argued that at its best it merely anticipated the fullness of truth that was to be found in divine revelation.

Further, he maintained that for all the benefits of philosophy, it could not finally lead to a true and proper knowledge of God, since it was contaminated with too much false and erroneous teaching. In spite of his reservations concerning philosophy, Origen believed that Christian faith itself was a kind of divine philosophy that, while surpassing and superceding all other philosophies, could make use of them by leading persons to a true knowledge of God and to salvation.

Thus, Christians may profitably study Greek philosophy or other pagan learning, "borrowing" truth from these sources in order to explain the Christian faith. In the same way that the Israelites took the property of the Egyptians with them in the exodus, said Origen, so the people of God are permitted to make use of the truths of pagan culture and philosophy, the "spoils of the Egyptians," in the work of theology and biblical interpretation.

Getting to the next level

This willingness to make use of Greek thought is perhaps nowhere more evident than in Origen's spiritual or allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture. He maintained that the Bible contained three levels of meaning, corresponding to the three aspects of a human being-body, soul, and spirit-derived from Platonic philosophy and the writings of Paul.

The bodily level of Scripture is the bare letter of the text, or its literal meaning, which is particularly useful in meeting the needs of the more simple minded.

The psychic level can be understood as the moral meaning of the text, providing guidance concerning right and proper conduct, although some ambiguity exists as to the exact ways in which Origen made use of this sense. In many cases he simply maintains that biblical narratives contain ethical and moral principles that may be found within or beneath the surface of the text's literal meaning.

The third and most important level of meaning is the spiritual or allegorical, which points to Christ and the relationship of the Christian with God. Origen believed that this spiritual/mystical meaning, while often hidden, is always present in the text. The task of the Christian interpreter is to uncover it. The allegorical method of interpretation sought to yield this hidden, symbolic meaning, and Origen became the leading figure in its establishment as the dominant method of biblical interpretation until the sixteenth century.

To allegorize or not?

This approach to interpretation often strikes contemporary readers as strange, unwarranted, and potentially dangerous. Why did Origen adopt it?

First, allegory is a legacy of Greek thought and would have been a one of the staples of Origen's Hellenistic education. It was initially used to defend belief in the inspired character of Homer's writings, the Iliad and the Odyssey, in the face of the charge that they portrayed morally suspect behavior. Homer's supporters maintained that the poems were symbolic and when read in their true, allegorical sense contained no moral or religious difficulties.

Over time, allegorical interpretive methods became increasingly sophisticated. Platonists contended that myths and symbols were necessary components in the communication of truths that were otherwise inaccessible. This appreciation for the value of myths and symbols became an essential part of Origen's outlook.

Second, Origen was exposed to a tradition of spiritual exegesis that began with the Jewish community in Alexandria, who used the method to demonstrate that their Scriptures were compatible with Greek philosophy. The leading Jewish proponent of this movement was Philo, and although his work eventually fell out of favor with the Jews, it was accepted enthusiastically by Christians and was probably communicated to Origen through Clement.

Hence, Origen inherited a strong belief in allegory as a tool to communicate the deepest and most profound philosophical and theological truths as well as the assumption that the Bible, the inspired Word of God, must be subject to such allegorical interpretation in order to grasp its spiritual significance.

Third, Origen found ample evidence in Scripture itself for the practice of spiritual exegesis, beginning with the Christian conviction that the entire Old Testament is a prophecy concerning Christ, who is the interpretive key to understanding the Hebrew Bible. In 2 Corinthians 3 he read that the Jewish people who reject Christ have a veil before their faces and over their hearts. This hides the true meaning of Scripture from their perception and limits them to the letter of the text, which kills. Only through Christ can the veil be removed and the spiritual meaning of the text, which gives life, be revealed. Only when Jesus explains the Scriptures to his disciples on the road to Emmaus and shows that they speak of him can their true meaning be revealed. For Origen, allegorical exegesis clearly provided the true meaning of the Old Testament.

The apostles did it too

Among the most significant New Testament passages that Origen cited as justifying spiritual exegesis is 1 Corinthians 10. Here, the pillar of cloud, the crossing of the Red Sea, the manna, the water from the rock, and death in the wilderness represent baptism, the eucharist, and punishment for sin. Verse 11 sums up these events, explaining that each of these things happened to the Hebrews as a typikos, a figure or example, written down for those who live at the end of the age. For Origen, this implied that the Old Testament was written for Christians, who needed to seek the spiritual interpretation since many of the ceremonies and legal precepts (the literal teachings of many passages) are no longer binding.

In Galatians 4, another important passage, Sarah and Hagar symbolize the two covenants. The Christians are prefigured by Isaac, the son of Sarah the free wife, and the Jews by Ishmael, the son of Hagar the slave. This passage is explicit in its use of allegory.

Other examples mentioned by Origen include Matthew 12:39-40, in which the three days Jonah spent in the great fish symbolize the three days Jesus will pass in the heart of the earth; Matthew 26:61 and John 2:19-21, in which the Temple symbolizes the body of Christ; Galatians 3, in which the posterity of Abraham is portrayed in Christ, who will fulfill the promises made to the patriarchs; and Hebrews 8, in which the ceremonies of the old covenant are but shadows of heavenly realities.

For Origen it was clear that the New Testament authorized and validated the spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament and, by extension, all of Scripture.

He could do no other

To Origen, the cultural assumptions of the Hellenistic world, the Christian belief in the inspired nature of the Bible, the centrality of Christ, and the teaching of the New Testament itself combined to demand the practice of spiritual interpretation. Three other apologetic or pragmatic impulses sealed his commitment to allegory.

1. In Hellenistic Alexandria, the assertion that the Bible was divinely inspired would have required its allegorical interpretation. To assert that it could not or should not be interpreted in such a fashion would be tantamount to denying its inspired character. Affirming the Bible as the Word of God entailed the assumption that its form and teaching was consistent with the highest cultural standards.
2. The Jewish critics of Christianity stressed Christ's failure to fulfill many of the prophecies concerning the Messiah. Origen believed that only a spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, able to perceive their deeper sense and meaning, would overcome these objections.
3. The Gnostic sects rejected the Old Testament on the grounds that it taught a different God than the one revealed in Christ. They believed that in contrast to the New Testament God of love, the deity of the Old Testament was vengeful, jealous, capricious, and often directly responsible for sin and evil. Origen considered this conclusion unavoidable if the biblical texts were accepted as literal; hence, he asserted that they must be understood allegorically. In fact, he argued that they are in many cases intentionally obscure and incoherent in order to coax and compel the reader to seek their true, spiritual meaning.
4. Finally, in response to those who might argue that the multiplicity of meanings generated by this approach would result in interpretive chaos, Origen insisted that the practice of Christian spiritual exegesis must always be conducted within the framework of the rule of faith established by the consensus of the church.

Loyal son or heretic?

Origen's significance as a biblical commentator, coupled with his intellect and skill as a teacher, should have ensured him an esteemed and permanent place in the Alexandrian church. In spite of his accomplishment and popularity, however, he fell into conflict with Demetrius, the bishop of Alexandria, over the issue of Origen's desire to be ordained to the priesthood.

Demetrius refused to allow this, saying that Origen was disqualified by his self-castration, although some have speculated that the denial had more to do with jealousy and concern over the power that Origen might wield in the church if he were to be ordained. Origen asked the bishop of Caesarea if he would be willing to grant ordination, and the affirmative answer prompted him to move to Caesarea sometime between 231 and 233. Here he spent the remaining years of his life teaching and writing, never returning to Alexandria.

Origen was arrested during the Decian persecution and subsequently imprisoned, tortured, and threatened with execution in an attempt to force him to recant. In spite of his suffering, he stood fast and was eventually released from prison, denied the martyr's crown he had sought to share with his father so many years earlier. He was a broken man, however, and lived out his last few years in relative obscurity, probably dying sometime around 254.

Had Origen been executed or had he died in prison, subsequent generations would have been slower to condemn him. Martyrdom covered a multitude of sins, theological and otherwise. His steadfastness in the face of torture and his death as a confessor of the faith were not enough to spare him the scorn of the church in its collective memory. Eventually, Origen was formally condemned as a heretic, and he has been regarded as heretical throughout much of the history of the church, particularly in the West.

Recently, this negative assessment has been reconsidered and altered considerably in some quarters. The question remains, however: How should those who are committed to the authority of Scripture and orthodox expressions of Christian faith assess Origen?

He set the pace

In Origen's context, Christian theological beliefs were not well developed or respected. Origen's work was a decisive factor in changing this state of affairs, both by establishing the intellectual credibility of the faith in the Hellenistic setting and by exploring the internal coherence of Christian faith. That he must sometimes be judged as mistaken in these explorations should hardly be surprising or cause for great concern.

Origen was one of the first Christian thinkers to give sustained attention to many of the issues he addresses. He did teach some unorthodox positions by later standards. But he was a seminal thinker in a process of trial, error, revision, and refinement from which an orthodox consensus emerged. Origen was always faithful to his own time's standards of orthodoxy. Certainly, he failed to see the implications of his views for future generations. But it is uncharitable to charge him with guilt for that failure.

Origen does provide us with an object lesson in the pitfalls of accommodation-the practice of too closely associating the Bible and Christian faith with the values and presuppositions of a particular social, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Having said that, it is important to remember that all human forms of thought are situated and embedded in social contexts. Origen is perhaps most guilty of the assumption that the Bible, as the Word of God, must be interpreted in conformity with the highest standards and aspirations of his Hellenistic setting.

Before we judge too quickly, however, we might want to ask a similar question of ourselves. Have we too readily conformed our own conceptions of the Bible and its interpretation to the assumptions and aspirations of our culture? And further, given our participation in it, on what basis are we able to make such an assessment? Perhaps in grappling with this perennial question, the life and work of Origen becomes most meaningful to us today.

John R. Franke is associate professor of theology at Biblical Theological Seminary, Hatfield, Pennsylvania.

Copyright © 2003 by the author or Christianity Today International/Christian History magazine. Click here for reprint information on Christian History. Issue 80, Fall 2004, Vol. XXII, No. 4, Page 18

www.ChristianityToday.com AOL Keyword and CompuServe GO: ChristianityToday.com Copyright © 1994-2002 Christianity Today International --

Isis or Mary?

Here's a picture of two comparative statues of Mary and Jesus vs. Isis and Horus
http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/headers/h_borrowing.jpg

The Black Madona: There are about 300 locations where a most revered icon in the catholic religion resides. She is called the Black Madonna. Recent discoveries by paleontologists have identified these shrines as Isis and Horus. During the advent of christian dominence in Europe, Isis worship was gradually restricted. By 435 a.d. the catholic church declared Mary as the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Queen of Angels. The icons of Isis and Horace (dead father god -osiris- reborn) were transformed into the christian icon of Mary and Jesus. Many believe that with the rise of Christianity and papal power, the Goddess slowly disappeared. So great was devotion to the Goddess that She was ressurected in the hearts of the people by a new Goddess, Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Isis is not the only Mother/child deity that resembles Mary/Jesus. Others include: Diana, Demeter and Kore, Cybele and Deoius, Fortuna and Jupiter, Shing Moo, Belus and Beltis.

Eating God

I've always had a problem with the practice of holy communion. Here are some thoughts I've compiled from others who have had some of the same questions.

Also known by christians as The Eucharist, Holy Communion, The Lords Supper, The Last Supper. There is an ancient tradition among men... going back eons... of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their god(s). Whether symbolically or using a substitute, the practice is supposed to transmute the qualities inherent in a god to his/her followers. Ranging from transubstantiation (the bread and wine changing into actual flesh and blood) or by symbolism, this act is a central ritual of christian worship. In the Bible it is referred to as Passover and also as The Lord's Supper. Passover was a yearly jewish feast that reminded Jews of how God brought them out of Egypt and protected them from the plagues when they put the blood of a lamb on the doorposts of their homes. It appears that this ritual was redefined to align with pagan rituals of the time (again refer to Constantine). The most astonishing of these to me is that of the God Liber\Dionysis\Bacchus who was said to have been torn limb from limb and eaten by his murderers. The celebration of this event involved worshipers celebrating in "recurring sacred rites celebrated every two years," in which, "They tear a live bull with their teeth, representing the cruel banquet [ at which the God was eaten. Mithraism also included a sacrament of bread and wine derived from the last supper of their respective savior. The concept of Eucharist most identifies with the pagan rituals than the act of Passover. However... the sacrificial lamb was also a stand-in atonement... I guess it's kinda like eating God too. I'll have to think more about that one. I've also wondered at the costuming worn by priests while parading down the street in robes and a big hat with a wafer in a wand with rays coming from it. Where did that garb come from? The wand looks like a reference to the sun. I'll have to look into that a bit more too. I have one more dangling thought: There is also reference in the Bible to breaking of bread from house to house. This is often quoted as a reference to communion. From what I can tell, it was not communion... rather a sharing of a meal together in fellowship (much like we would share a meal or eat out together in modern times).

Christ or Mithras?

There are many elements in the Christian belief system that coincide with earlier or contemporary pagan religions. Mithras is one of the most obvious. Points of similarity in the stories are:

* Virgin birth
* Twelve followers
* Killing and resurrection
* Miracles
* Birthdate on December 25
* Morality
* Mankind's savior
* Known as the Light of the world

Another coincidence is the fact that early christians were pacifists and anarchists before the establishment of the Roman form of Christianity. They refused to enter the military, or any kind of government work. Mithras was the chosen religion of the Roman Soldiers of the time. Within 60 years of the Nicean Council almost every soldier and civil servant was a Catholic.
If Mithras was born on December 25th, when was Christ Born?

No one really knows exactly when Jesus was born. It definitely was not in the winter. Don't you think the shepherds watching their flocks by night would have been more apt to find shelter? December in Judea is cold and wet! Winter was more significant in that it coincided with the Pagan/Mithras Solstace/Sun God celebrations. The intermeshing of the two festivals was an attempt by the church fathers to transform the pagan celebrations into christian celebrations. The Church finally succeeded in taking the merriment, the greenery, the lights, and the gifts from saturn and given them to the babe of Bethlehem. The days between December 25 and January 6 (the days between the Saturnalia and the Kalends of January) were caught up into one "holy" season, with the birth of the divine Child at the beginning and the coming of the Magi at the end. The days between Christmas and Epiphany became known as the Twelve Nights of Christmas.

The Nicene Council - What is it?

Historically, the Nicene council - otherwise known as the council of Nicea (ad 325) - was the first worlwide ecumenical meeting of the christian church. It was organized by the Roman Emporer Constantine after the event of his conversion (or mocked conversion) to Christianity. It was also the advent of the Roman Catholic Church. The 318 men sitting on the council are said to have been bishops and church fathers from all over the world. Some scholars write that leaders of pagan religions were also there to have a voice.The main discussion was said to have been about disagreements regarding the trinity. It also addressed the date of Easter, and the place of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and was where the Nicene Creed was written to establish trinitarianism and counter Arianism.

A word on Easter


The Council decreed Easter to be the first Sunday after the Full Moon following the Spring Equinox, March 21, unless that Full Moon fell on a Sunday (in which case Easter would be the following Sunday).

In addition to the perfectly reasonable desire to keep the memorial on the same day of the week as Christ's Resurrection, there were other, ignoble motives for separating the Christian celebration from the Jewish holy day. There is some talk that the dates for Easter were adjusted to accomodate the pagans who were required by law to switch to Christianity (the state religion). Fierce penalty was applied to those who did not comply.

Though Constantine closely associated himself to the work of the church... he refused baptism. On his deathbed he was baptized against his will by Eusebius.

Theological Ramblings... an introduction

I'm an inquisitive soul by nature. Some tell me I'm a natural theologian. I love to dig for answers. Believing because someone told me to believe is not enough. Inconsistencies in church traditions and the Bible is one of my pet peeves. Early on in my spiritual walk I began to question communion. It's not at all the way it's portrayed in the Bible. Other mysteries began to arise that I felt I needed to address for my own personal growth and satisfaction. In this blog I will be exploring questions and coming to some surprising conclusions.