The Holy Trinity: A Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage" (Part 2)

And now to the $65,000 question, how does the Trinity negate the notion of same-sex “marriage?” Well, let’s briefly recap what we know about the Doctrine of the Trinity:

1. God the Father DID NOT make God the Son. Jesus, was with God the Father from the beginning and, according to the Council of Nicea, He is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father, that is, he is consubstantial with the Father.

2. The Council of Constantinople unerringly declared that God is a Trinity, a “tri-unity” of the Three Persons that constitute the one God. It also decreed that the Holy Spirt “proceeds from the Father and the Son”  when it ultimately fixed the Nicea-Constantinople Creed.

Now, let’s understand one VERY important attribute of God, and that is that, God is love. This is 100% unquestionable and, if we are going to relate God and marriage, then surely, God as the ideal model for love must be taken into account. And, if it is true that God is love, then we must also realize that the Three Persons of the Trinity form perfect love. But, how exactly does this happen?

Simply put, God the Father loves His Son and, since He is perfect, He HAS TO love perfectly. God the Son cannot deny the love that God the Father gives Him so, as the Son, Jesus, who is also God, perfectly reciprocates the love of the Father by pouring Himself – all that He is – back to the Father. This love, this mutual exchange of Divine love, is so perfect and so real that, that very same love, becomes another real and perfect person, which becomes the Holy Spirit. Hence the reason as to why the Fathers at Constantinople in 381 stated that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from” the first 2 persons of the Godhead. So, therefore, what we have here is the epitome of what love is: the mutual self-giving of oneself for the love of another which leads to the manifestation of another separate being.

The important thing here to note is that the Doctrine of the Trinity, was established BEFORE Sacred Scripture was canonized and put forth by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., it was at that synod of bishops, which was headed by Pope St. Damasus I, that the very first set of inspired Scriptures is not only stated but, historically rooted for the early Church. Pope St. Damasus I states that the Church acknowledges 73 books as being inspired, which is the same number of book in the bible that ALL Roman Catholics use to this day. Hence, before the Scriptures were codified into the worship of the early Christians, the fact that God was 3-in-1 was already settled, thus, everything we read in the Scriptures that yields evidence for the Trinity was simply stating an established belief of what the church already knew and not vice versa. 

Jesus told us in Matthew 5:48, to "be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect." In Ephesians 5:1 and 1 Corinthians 11:1, St. Paul tells us to imitate Christ and, in 1 Peter 2:21, St. Peter exhorts us to do the same. Why do I mention this? Well Christ told us to be like the Father and, the Apostles tells to imitate Christ, basically, we are to be God-like in our behavior and in our actions. Therefore, if we know that God is love and that we are to imitate God, how does God want us to love?

This question leads us to the crux of my argument. If God intended solely for a married man and woman to be in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, it only makes logical sense that such a union WOULD HAVE TO IMITATE GOD'S LOVE. That is, a man and a woman would have to - in the giving of one to another - produce something that is a real manifestation of their love, in the same way that the Father and the Son's love produces the Holy Spirit.

With heterosexual matrimony, it is quite clear that this is entirely possible: a man loves his wife, the wife loves her husband, the two love each other so much that they physically procreate another real human due to the bond of love that they have. In the same manner that God the Father and God the Son bring forth God the Holy Spirit, a heterosexual couple - through the marital act - beget a child. The love of a husband and a wife is so real that it equates to another real human being. THIS IS WHY THE TRINITY IS THE TRUMP CARD AGAINST SAME-SEX "MARRIAGE." Only through the marital union that God has originally made, can man and woman mirror and simulate God's love as He intended us to do. This is also one of the reasons as to why the Church teaches against sex outside of marriage; if in fact we are called to be imitators of God and, if in fact, all life is Holy, then the act which brings about new life - the act which God ordained for a married couple - must too be treated with the utmost respect. To trivialize human sexuality and not uphold it's proper place within humanity is an atrocity. God gave us the marital union so that we could be like Him, so that a man and a woman can be one (see Mark 10:8 and Matthew 19:5), and, it is in this oneness, that the mystery of who God is and how God loves becomes revealed to us.

Right from the beginning,  man and woman had a special bond with God and the serpent saw to it that it be undermined. If man and woman share a special bond that allows them to parallel who God is, wouldn't Satan also want to destroy that bond as well?

When we analyze homosexual "marriages," we find this extremely basic imitation of God is absolutely absent. Two gay men cannot love one another to the extent that their love naturally gives birth to another and two lesbians can never love each other to the point where they can generate another human being that shares in both of their natures. No homosexual act can ever bring about nor produce another real human being and, therefore, no homosexual union can ever mimic God's perfect love. And, while no human can ever attain perfect love on a humanly level, it is categorically obvious that we can, on a humanly level, partake in the Divine Nature through heterosexual union and not through homosexual coupling. Indeed, homosexual "marriages" not only mock God's divine marital ordinance but, it makes the Holy and Blessed Trinity an inoperative, impractical, illogical and, unworkable model for who God is.  

For this fundamental reason, it is impossible for any Catholic and any true Christians to ever concede that homosexual "marriages" or unions can be harmonized with true Christianity for they make a caricature of what Holy Matrimony is and, has always been: an indissoluble covenant between a man and a woman which reveals to us who God is and how God loves. And, anyone who chooses to debate this point need not take it up with the teachings of the Church but, with God Himself.

The Holy Trinity: A Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage" (Part 1)

Considering that this Sunday we will be celebrate Trinity Sunday on the liturgical calendar, I thought it fitting to not only go over what the Trinity is but, to apply it to one of today's hotly debated topic, same-sex "marriage." I will be putting out two posts, the first one deals with the apologetical view of the Trinity having come from the Roman Catholic Church and, the second, will demonstrate just how the Trinity negates the notion of homosexual marriages. 

Of all of the Christian concepts, the Holy and Blessed Trinity is somewhat of a conundrum due to the fact that most Christians believe that our God is Triune but, that same majority, cannot clearly define what the Trinity is and how we as Christians know it to be a truth. 

This is definitely a sad thing to behold because the greatest case for the Church’s teaching against same-sex marriage can be succinctly seen if we understand what and who the Trinity is. But, before I can unpack this truth, let’s first get a clearer understanding of who God – as the Trinity – is. This post will be divided into 2 parts, the first one will demonstrate and affirm the Trinity as a revealed truth given to the Catholic Church and, the second post will deal exclusively with the Trinity and homosexual unions. 

INTRODUCTION

One of my favorite anti-sola scriptura proofs is that of the Trinity due to the fact that so many Protestants hold true to the fact that God is Three-In-One but, NEVER ONCE do the Scriptures ever state this and, NEVER ONCE does the bible ever use the term “Trinity” to describe who or what God is. Indeed, the bible-alone Protestant cannot rely on the bible-alone in order to prove that God is a Trinity. While they can use several verses to prop-up the evidence, a fundamentalist and literal reading of the bible will never yield the dogma of the Trinity nor the name Trinity itself. This is very important because any Protestant denomination that holds that God is triune is not holding an explicit biblical belief but a belief based on historical Christianity, that is, they are holding an explicit Catholic belief. This brings us to our first analysis:

WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE WOULD BE NO TRINITY!

This is without a doubt a very troubling supposition to make to a Protestant Christian; to tell them that the only reason they know about the Trinity is primarily due to the Roman Catholic Church, is a sure fire way to get them in a tizzy. But, the fact of the matter is that the Trinity itself, that is, the fact that God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, was a proclamation made, unerringly by the Catholic Church at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.

This was the second ecumenical council that the Catholic Church undertook, with Nicaea being the first one. At Nicaea, the early church fathers did away with the Arian heresy, a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ and, by definitively declaring that Jesus as the Son of God is consubstantial with God the Father, they decreed that Christ was Divine. However, towards the end of the 4^th century, another group of heretics started to challenge who God was.

This new group of heretics were called the Macedonians or, as they were known in Greek, the Pneumatomachi – which translates to “combaters against the spirit.” They held that both God the Father and God the Son were deific but, they did not view God the Holy Spirit as divine. Along with several other heretical movements that were discussed at the Council of Constantinople (Anomeans, Eudoxians, Saballians, Marcellians, Photinians and, the Apollinarians), the 150 Church Fathers of that council stated in the First Canon  that the Nicene’s council’s declarations have not been repealed, that is, the faith that the 318 father’s professed at Nicaea in 325 A.D. when they stated it in the Creed was not null but, the Creed itself would now incorporate the following:

“And in the Spirit, the holy, the lordly and life-giving one, proceeding forth from the Father, co-worshipped and co-glorified with Father and Son, the one who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. We confess one baptism for the forgiving of sins. We look forward to a resurrection of the dead and life in the age to come. Amen.”

This is why the official term for the creed that we profess every Sunday as Catholics isn’t the Nicene Creed but, properly stated, it is the Nicene-Constantinople Creed – due to the fact that it originated in Nicaea and concluded in Constantinople some 50 years later because of the heretical movements of the 4^th century. And, it was in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Constantinople that the Trinity is explicitly expressed:

“…we have also recognised those in Antioch who confess a single Godhead of Father and Son and holy Spirit.”

What the 150 Church Fathers stated here was that they believed that God was 3-in-1 as it was recognized by those in Antioch, that is to say that, the philosophy behind the Trinity originated with the Church Fathers at Antioch. One need only look to the Patriarchs of Antioch to find the early remnants of the Trinitarian belief: St. Ignatius was the third Patriarch of Antioch and, in his Epistle to the Magnesians written in the early 100’s A.D., he states the following in regards to God being Three Persons:

“…Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed (Chapter 6)…Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one (Chapter 7)…so all things whatsoever you do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit…Be subject to the bishop, and to another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirt…(Chapter 13)…”

In Chapter 6 of his epistle, we see St. Ignatius state that Christ was with God the Father from the beginning of time, hence, Jesus wasn’t created and, if not created, He had to have been begotten from the Father from all eternity. In Chapter 7, he states that Jesus is “with” God the Father, if He is with God the Father, then Jesus must be part of Him. Hence, the fact that – for the Trinity to properly understood – Jesus is homoousios with the Father, that is, Jesus shares of the same substance as God the Father (homo = same, ousia = substance). Lastly, in Chapter 13, St. Ignatius of Antioch makes it unquestionably clear that the Son, the Father, and the Spirit are all interconnected.

Eighty years or so after St. Ignatius, we come to the seventh Patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus. In the second book of his Apology to Autolycus, written in 181 A.D., we see in Chapter 15 that Theophilus is contemplating the Creation Narrative and, in analyzing the 4^th day of Creation, he formulates the Trinity:

“In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom.”

In exegeting the Creation Narrative, Theophilus becomes the first person ever to use the word “Trinity” to describe the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can see why the Fathers at the Council of Constantinople in 382 A.D. stated that they recognized what those in Antioch had already professed, namely, that God is one under 3 different auspices.

The question here is, where these Antiochians Catholic? Well, we know that in the Book of Acts, 11:26, it states that it is in Antioch that the first followers of Christ were called “Christians.” We also know that the book of Acts date to the mid 60’s A.D and, we also know that St. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch from 68 A.D. to his death in 107 A.D., what this means  is that Ignatius was the leader of this new group of people who were calling themselves “Christians.” Now, this is where the ecclesiastical rubber hits the road: On his way to be martyred, St. Ignatius writes a series of letters to different churches and, it is in the 8^th Chapter of his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, that he states something rather remarkable:

"See that you follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected to the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

In other words, the leader of the group of Christians in Antioch, was THE FIRST person to state that the true Church of Jesus Christ was called the Catholic Church! And, even more astonishing is that he stated this before his death in 107 A.D.! The point that I’m trying to make is this: the very first instance of a Trinitarian formula came from St. Ignatius, a bishop who was the shepherd of one of the very first Christian communities and, that very same bishop, referred to the church that he and his flock belonged to as the Catholic Church. And then, 2 generations later, the 7^th bishop of Antioch – who belonged to the Catholic Church – is THE FIRST person to state the word “Trinity” when describing who God is. Therefore, when the Council of Constantinople stated in Canon 5 that they will be observing the Godhead as it is “recognized by those in Antioch,” the Catholic Church was simply validating the revelation that it had received through the bishopric of Catholic Church at Antioch! 

We could also include Athenagoras of Athens, as yet another Catholic priest who was one of the very first men to mention God as a Trinity. In his 177 A.D. work, A Plea for the Christian,  Athenagoras states in the 10^th chapter the following regarding the worship of the Christian God:

“Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirt, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order…?”

We can make a proper assumption that Athenagoras also believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist due to the fact that, in Chapter 35, he renounced the charge of cannibalism that has been brought against the Christians*; why would such an allegation be made against Christians by the pagan Romans if they didn’t think that there was some truth to it? Truth be told, the early Christians weren’t cannibals, they simply did what the early Church did in her liturgy, that being, they celebrated the Eucharist as the real Body and Blood of Christ…the same way that the Roman Catholic Church still does to this day!

The huge takeaway here is that it was the Roman Catholic Church who was at these first ecumenical councils that resolutely helped defined the Trinity - with help from the Holy Spirit of course. THIS IS A FACT THAT NO PROTESTANT CAN DENY. The fact of the matter is that no Protestant church can ever make a substantial or demonstrable case that demonstrates that their denomination/communion was at these councils. Indeed, it would take over 1,100 more years after the Council of Constantinople before the Protestant Revolt would seize Europe and fracture the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Therefore it is noteworthy to state that, because of the authority that the Catholic Church has, she was able to definitively define a dogma of the Christian faith (the Trinty) as well as elucidate as to the nature of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son (homoousios). This is very important because EVERY sola-scriptura Protestant denomination that may believe in the Holy Trinity must attribute this divine revelation, not to the Scriptures - because they weren't canonized yet - but, to the work of the Holy Spirit guiding the one true Church.

*Note how Athenagoras strongfully rails against abortion as well! 

Easter is Pagan. NOT! (Part 3)

An Easter Season message from an Anti-Catholic Protestant:

“The Roman Catholic Church is the pagan Whore of Babylon! She is the idolatrous harlot who speaks blasphemies and persecutes the 'real' Christians!”

I’m pretty sure that a lot of us have heard this phrase in our lifetime, it is usually exclaimed by an anti-Catholic Protestant who has been force fed a diet of lies and twisting of Sacred Scripture. How can someone make such a claim you may ask? Well, let’s go through some Scripture verses and flesh out these Protestant claim. I will break up each argument into 3 sections:

1) Claim = What the Protestant believes.

2) Conclusion = “Proof” for the Protestant claim.

3) Rebuttal = Demonstrating how the claim and the conclusion are wrongfully arrived at.

As usual, unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references come from the KJV.

CLAIM #1: Rome is Babylon. How can this statement be justified? To the mind of a Roman Catholic, this is impossible: Rome is where the Vatican is and where St. Peter and St. Paul got martyred, whereas Babylon is where the Jews were exiled to for 70 years before being restored to the Promised Land. How can an anti-Catholic make this claim? Well, in the first Epistle of Peter, written by St. Peter around 65 A.D. while he was in Rome and held the bishopric there, he closes out by sending some final greetings from Rome; he states the following in 1Peter 5:13:

The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

CONCLUSION: St. Peter was martyred in Rome around 67 A.D. and all Catholics state that he was the first Bishop of Rome, i.e., the Pope. Therefore, when Peter wrote his 1^st Epistle, he was writing from Rome and, towards the end of his letter, explicitly sends regards from “the church at Babylon.” Hence, Rome is Babylon.

REBUTTAL: Why did St. Peter refer to Rome as Babylon? Because, from a historical perspective, Babylon was the home of the pagans that persecuted the Jews for over 70 years during their Babylonian captivity from 535 B.C. to 610 B.C.; it was during this time the First Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. Fast-forward 680 years later to 70 A.D. and, by this time, the pagan Romans are in charge of the Holy Land and they have destroyed the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Additionally, in the same manner that Babylon persecuted the Jews, now it is the Romans who are persecuting the new People of God, namely, the Christians. Therefore, when St. Peter refers to Rome as Babylon, he is referring to the pagan Roman’s oppression of the Church.

What we need to remember is when Rome is referred to as Babylon, it is EXPLICITLY referring to the ancient pagan Roman Empire AND NOT modern day Rome nor is it referring to the Vatican or Roman Catholicism; to take St. Peter’s word’s out of their historical context in order to prove a false and deceptive presumption is not only disingenuous but, at the very least, immoral.

CLAIM #2: ROME IS THE “GREAT CITY” SET ON 7 HILLS UPON WHICH THE WHORE IS SEATED. All anti-Catholics who subscribe to this ill-formed schema, cite Revelation 17 as their source for justifying the idiotic notion that the RCC = The Whore of Babylon. In Revelation 17, the first 8 verses depict a harlot who rides atop a scarlett beast with 7 heads and 10 horns but, in verse 9, we read the following:

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth…

So, what we have here is the fact that the woman/whore sits atop seven hills. This has to be the Roman Catholic Church because the Vatican is one of the 7 primary hills of Rome!

Note the 7 hills of Rome and how close the
Vatican is to those hills! Coincidence?

Additionally, we see that the woman/whore sits next to the water, in Revelation 17:1 we read in part:

…saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Less than 2,000 feet away we find water!

It should also be noted that Rev. 17:1 is referring directly to the Roman Catholic Church because no other Christian religion has been able to penetrate all of the parts of the world like the Roman Catholic Church, thereby sitting upon many waters! Lastly, we read in Revelation 17:18 that the woman/whore is a “great city,” this is also a direct reference to Rome because the only great city at the time the Book of Revelation was being written was the city of Rome itself:

And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, we have here clear evidence that Rome is the Whore because: 1) She sits atop 7 hills, 2) she sits upon the waters as well as many parts of the world and, 3) she is the “great city” to which St. John refers to in his Apocalypse.

REBUTTAL: Above all other “reasons” for the Catholic Church to be the Whore of Babylon, these are usually cited the most because they can easily be used to draw an observers attention away from the truth and towards a more misconstrued view of what is factual. First, let’s deal with the “7 hills” argument.

Saying that the Vatican, which is in Rome and sit’s 130 feet above sea level, is the woman spoken of in Revelation 17 - because  it is situated among 7 hills - is simply an attempt at trying to take a verse of Scripture and twisting it to be something it is not. If the “7 hills” argument is to be taken seriously then why not state that the 7 hills are the 7 hills of Edinburgh, Scotland? Or, why not the 7 hills of Istanbul, Turkey? Or, how about Kampala, Uganda, since it too was founded on 7 hills? We can add Lynchburg, Virginia to that list, as well as: Seattle, Washington; Moscow, Russia; Prague, Czech Republic; Lisbon, Portugal; Brussels, Belgium; and, Isai, Romania. Or, how about the fact that our country’s Capital has seven hills, those being, Capitol Hill, Meridian Hill, Floral Hills, Forest Hills, Hillbrook, Hillcrest and, Knox Hill?

Even more disturbing, the fact that the birthplace of Islam’s prophet and it’s most holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia WAS BUILT AROUND 7 HILLS! Gee, you’d think that an anti-Catholic Protestant would be more inclined to take St. John’s vision of a blasphemous and diabolical city situated among 7 hills and equate it with Mecca but, no. Instead it is much easier for the anti-Catholic to look at Rome with more disdain then a religion that, quite frankly, only spread via the sword. Kinda goes to show you the lengths that some will go to in order to deny Rome of her primacy.

So, the “7 hills argument” can be easily refuted by noting that there are MANY major cities around the world that could be the so-called “great city” situated on seven hills – if all we had was Revelation 17 then a strong contention could be made for Rome being the “great city” as well as the whore. But, there are 4 reasons as to why Rome cannot be the pagan, idolatrous and abominable Whore of Babylon but, instead, as I will show, it is referring to Jerusalem, that is, Jerusalem IS the Whore of Babylon.

Reason #1, St. John tells us explicitly that it is NOT Rome but Jerusalem.

That’s right, St. John EXPLICITLY states that the “great city” is Jerusalem. The “great city” is first mentioned in Revelation 11 when St. John is ordered to measure out the Temple, Revelation 11:1-3,7-8 reads (my emphasis):

And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth…

…And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

St. John tells us here that the “great city” is allegorically referred to as Sodom and Egypt AND it is also where Jesus was crucified. Jesus was not crucified in Rome but, in Jerusalem! And, to a first century Jew, referring to Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt denoted that the great city of Jerusalem had become a mere shadow of its former self and had slipped into sinful habits. St. John is showing us in these passages that, in the first century A.D., Jerusalem had become so wicked and so evil that this is why the Lord met his death there; so bad was Jerusalem at that time that they not only missed the promised Messiah but, they imitated the deplorable acts of Sodom and Egypt!

Reason #2, Jerusalem is called a Harlot/Whore/Prostitute various times in the Old Testament.

How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. (Isaiah 1:21)

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. (Jeremiah 3:8)

Again the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations, And say, Thus saith the Lord God unto Jerusalem…And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live; yea, I said unto thee when thou wast in thy blood, Live…Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love…yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee…And thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God. But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was…Thou hast built thy high place at every head of the way, and hast made thy beauty to be abhorred, and hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by, and multiplied thy whoredoms. Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh…Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied. Thou hast moreover multiplied thy fornication in the land of Canaan unto Chaldea; and yet thou wast not satisfied therewith. How weak is thine heart, saith the Lord God, seeing thou doest all these things, the work of an imperious whorish woman; In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire; But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! (Ezekiel 16:1-32)

The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord. (Hosea 1:2)

Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart. My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them: for the spirit of whoredoms hath caused them to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God. They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and elms, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters shall commit whoredom, and your spouses shall commit adultery. (Hosea 4:11-13)

Reason #3, The Beast in Revelation 17 destroys the whore.

Yet another reason that the woman/whore cannot be Rome is because the Beast she rides upon eventually devours her! In other words, pagan Rome = Beast and the Whore = Jerusalem. This is exactly in line with what happened in 70 A.D. when the Roman Empire sacked the great city and demolished the Jewish Temple. We see this stated in Revelation 17:16:

And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Thus, the Beast and the Whore are two different things but, if the Whore is Jerusalem, how do we know that the Beast is the pagan Roman Empire? If we read through Revelation 13:18, we get a clue that the Beast has a mark with a numerical value of 666. Then, if we then look at Revelation 17:9-10, we see that the Beast is compromised of 7 heads which represent 7 kings: 5 of the kings have fallen, there is a current king upon a throne and, the final king has not yet come but, when the final one arrives he will be king for a short time.

What does all of this mean? Well, if in fact the Beast is to be understood as the pagan Romans, then – historically speaking – it makes perfect sense when we look at the 7 Caesars that ruled the Roman Empire during the great persecution of the Christians:

1. Julius Caesar, 49-44 B.C.

2. Augustus, 31 B.C. – 14 A.D.

3. Tiberius, 14-37 A.D.

4. Caligula, 37-41 A.D.

5. Claudius, 41-54 A.D.

6. Nero, 54-68 A.D.

7. Galba, 68-69 A.D.

Here we see that St. John is relating the 7 heads of the Beast (pagan Rome) to it’s 7 kings (Caesars). Note at how the last king only reigned for a short time as stated in Rev. 17:10 and once we analyze Nero’s title in Greek and transliterate it into Hebrew, we arrive at the number 666:

Nero Caesar (English) =  Ηρων Κσρ (“Nron Qsr” in Greek) = נרונ קסר (Hebrew)

ר – Resh = 200

ס – Samekh = 60

ק – Qoph = 100

נ – Nun = 50

ו – Vav = 6

ר – Resh = 200

נ – Nun = 50

Total for Nero Caesar = 666. Hence, St. John speaks of the first huge wave of Christian persecution that started under Nero and not in anyway shape or form to the Pope, Roman Catholicism or the Vatican.

The twisting of Scripture in order to derive a non-historical and
non-Catholic meaning, is the epitome of Anti-Catholic Protestantism.

Reason #4, The “great city” is replaced by the “New Jerusalem,” or, the Bride.

In Revelation 18:5-8, we read that God will indeed cast his judgment upon Jerusalem:

…or her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double…so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, “I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.” Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

After God is done judging the Whore and the Beast, we read about the New Jerusalem prepared by God for His People in Revelation 21:9-22 (my emphasis):

…And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel…And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

For all of these reasons, the Roman Catholic Church CANNOT be the Whore of Babylon. When we analyze what Scripture is trying to tell us and when we interpret Scripture within its historical context, we see that the only way one can come to such an erroneous and delusory conclusion is either through pure ignorance or deliberate blindness. 

Easter is pagan. NOT! (Part 2)

HAPPY EASTER!!!

Continuing on with my Easter Season posts, this one will deal with another cited reason as to why Easter has pagan origins, namely, that it was Constantine who approved of Easter.

The explanation goes something like this:

In 325 A.D. – Emperor Constantine, a pagan Sun-god worshiper, at the Council Nicaea ordered all Churches to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday, which was the high pagan holy day of Sol Invictus. The ancient Church had celebrated the Resurrection during the Passover [Nisan 14], which could fall on any day of the week, but the Churches near Rome had abandoned the practice because they hated the Jews, and fixed the date to the first Sunday after the first full moon of Spring. They also called the celebration ‘Easter’, after the pagan goddess of Spring.

There is only one way in which this presumption can be shown to be false, that being, we must prove that the Catholic Church was celebrating a Paschal Feast, i.e., “Easter” PRIOR TO the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

So, with that being said, let’s look at the historical accounts as to the existence of an Easter celebration before the First Council at Nicaea!

Early Church historian and bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius Pamphilus (260-340 A.D.), attended the First Nicene Council but, more importantly, he finished his work entitled, Church History, before 325 A.D. We are sure of this due to the fact that, in the final book of Church History, Eusebius dedicates it to Paulinius, the bishop of Tyre (See Book X, paragraph 2). Paulinius became the bishop of Antioch and died after only 6 months as Antioch’s patriarch. His successor and the 25^th Patriarch of Antioch, Eustathius, just so happened to be present at Nicaea in 325 A.D. Along with Eusibiu, he is said to have been among the 318 bishops at the Council. Therefore, we know as a matter of fact that, when Eusebius finished his opus on the History of the early Catholic Church, HE HAD TO have written all 10 books BEFORE Constantine [apparently] forced the Catholic Church to co-opt the pagan worshipping day of Sunday for their Masses as well as the celebration of the resurrection day of their Messiah to coincide with pagan practice.

Eusebius is proof that the early Church – which was entirely Catholic in its identity – was ALREADY celebrating a Paschal Feast that memorialized the resurrection of Christ. He wrote in Book V, Chapter 23 entitled, The Question then agitated concerning the Passover, the following:

“A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon [Nisan 14], on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Savior.

Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Cæsarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenæus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.”

So, what does Eusebius tell us here? He literally tells us 3 things:

1) A Paschal Feast has been observed due to Apostolic Tradition. Eusebius states that Easter isn’t a man-made tradition nor is it a man-made observance, on the contrary, as Catholics we correctly uphold the legitimacy of unerring Apostolic Tradition (See CCC Sec.1 Chap.2  Article 2). Hence, to celebrate Easter, is to celebrate a God-inspired day in which all faithful Christians are to reflect on the majesty and joyfulness of Christ having freed us from the shackles of death.

2) There is a form of fasting involved, that is, they fasted up until the Paschal festival. Easily seen here is the historical evidence for fasting up until Easter or, as Roman Catholics call it, Lent. Here is proof that the Early Christians fasted for a certain number of days or weeks up until Easter and, as we shall shortly see, it wasn’t whether or not Christians had to observe the Paschal Festival but, the real issue among the Church Fathers was on which day(s) that the faithful should observe Easter!

3) The early Catholic Churches came together to acknowledge that the Paschal Feast should be observed on a Sunday.  The day Jesus rose from the dead was to be the day set on the calendar for the Paschal Feast. This fact alone refutes the “Constantine ordered Easter to be on a Sunday” argument, for here we see that Eusebius – writing BEFORE the Council of Nicaea – states that some of the major churches came together and agreed to commemorate the resurrection of the Lord on “the Lord’s day,” i.e., Sunday.

If we continue into Book V, Chapter 24 of Church History, we see that even though the churches agreed to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord, the one thing they had some difficulty with was the date. In the 24^th Chapter, Eusebius recalls how the Bishop of Rome, Victor (d. 199 A.D.), chose to excommunicate the churches in Asia who did not want to conform to the ruling of the prevailing churches. The Asian churches, led by Polycrates (130-196 A.D.), who was the bishop of Ephesus at the time, sent a letter to Victor on behalf of the churches in Asia stating that they observe “the exact day” of Nisan 14.

Nisan 14 (think April 14), it should be noted, is the day before the Jewish Passover. To this day, practicing Jews celebrate the 7 days of their Passover beginning on Nisan 15. We see that the Passover is made into a perpetual holiday by God in Exodus 12 and, in the Gospel of John, we see several verses that could lead one to believe that Nisan 14 is the proper day of the Paschal Feast regardless of what day it falls on. The Asian bishops held that the celebration should begin at the time when the disciples ate the Passover with Christ in the upper room, which is roughly in line with the Jewish Passover itself.

Not only did Polycrates cite St. John the Evangelist as a source for their belief but he goes down the list of some of the most well known Church Fathers of the 2^nd century! Victor becomes incensed when he hears of this and, another very well known Early Church Father helps to mediate the situation between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Ephesus...Enter St. Irenaeus.

Eusebius quotes a letter from St. Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) which was written to squelch the disagreement between the two factions. In this letter to Victor, St. Irenaeus recounts an account by Polycarp (70-155 A.D.), who was the Bishop at Smyrna and an apostle of St. John, of an instance when Polycarp visited Rome and talked with St. Anicetus (d.168 A.D.), the Bishop of Rome at the time:

“For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith…

…And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect .And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.”

St. Irenaeus bears witness here that, by the early 2^nd century, the church as a whole was celebrating the resurrection of Jesus; the only difference was that the Eastern churches celebrated Easter on Nisan 14 and the Western Church celebrated it on the Sunday AFTER Passover. Did this rift lead them to split the Early Church in two? Nope. The one Body of Christ remained unsplintered and would continue to stay united for another 1,300 years, until a sole disgruntled monk decided he knew better than the Church and invented his own personal religion; an action that would spark the Protestant revolt.

Eusebius of Ceasaera: The grey beard let's you know
this dude is full of mad knowledge.

An interesting thing to note here is the power that the Bishop of Rome, that is, the Pope, had at this time. How is it that Victor had the authority to excommunicate a whole region of churches and no one stated that he could not do so? Think about it, for all of the detail that Eusebius and Irenaeus put into their writings, not once did they ever mention that the Bishop of Rome had no power to excommunicate! Quite the opposite occurs, numerous bishops, as well as Irenaeus himself, implore the Bishop of Rome’s sensibilities for him NOT TO excommunicate these churches. Hence, it can be argued, the Early Church viewed Rome and the Bishop who resided there with primacy.

Additionally, note at how St. Irenaeus says that Polycarp – who was a directly apostle of St. John – couldn’t persuade Anicetus, the Pope at the time, to reconsider the date for the Paschal Feast! I don’t know about you, but, if a scholarly student of St. John told me that I was doing something wrong, I’d not only believe him but, I’d immediately change in order to rectify my actions! But, did Polycarp use this argument against the Bishop of Rome, that is, did Polycarp use the fact that he knew the Beloved Disciple personally as reason to get Anicetus to change his mind? No. He doesn’t even attempt to correct him and, why should he? St. Anicetus sits on St. Peter’s throne as the 11^th Bishop of Rome and has all of the authority that has been invested into that office! Very telling, how the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome had already taken form by the early 2^nd century.

Another Church Father that is mentioned by Eusebius is that of St. Anatolius of Laodicea (d. 288). In Book 7, Chapter 32, paragraphs 13-14 of Church History, Eusebius makes mention of Anatolius’ Paschal Canons. In this writing, Anatolius points out that, since the date of the Jewish Passover was calculated by the Jews and, many of the early Christians relied on the Jewish calendar for the Easter celebration. Eventually, however, there arose a sense of doubt when the Passover would fluctuate from one 14^th day of the month to another. So again we see that the date for Easter was indeed an issue: there were those who wanted to celebrate it with the Jews on Nisan 14 (Quartodecimans) and those who want to distance themselves from the Jews and celebrate it on the Sunday after the Jewish Passover.

This issue was officially resolved when the Catholic Church convened at Nicaea. Near the end of the Nicene documents, we read the following:  

We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning.

Why do we celebrate Easter and how do we know it’s not from Constantine’s pagan beliefs? Because the early church was celebrating it before 325 A.D. and it officially made Easter a Christian observance. All in all, the early Christians simply wanted a day to honor our Savior’s resurrection by fasting and feasting. Working from apostolic tradition, they all agreed that the Paschal Feast should be celebrated but, differed on when and how to do it. In order to unify the one and only Body of Christ, the Church Fathers at Nicaea declared infallibly when it was to be observed.

Although no one can ever pin-point the exact date of when Jesus resurrected, the date we observe and celebrate today is a reasonable approximation with absolutely NO pagan festivals attached to it. Therefore, for the rest of this Easter Season let us not concentrate so much on those who mistakenly attempt to profane Easter but, on the completed work of Christ and our application to it. 


EXTRA TIDBITS

As an aside, there is one final Constantine myth that we must also take into consideration. That being, the fallacious idea that Constantine made Jesus into a God.

 

"Hi, I'm John Constantine and I'm here to turn your
resurrected  Messiah into a God. You can thank me later." 

One of the more prevalent myths out there is that Constantine, by making Christianity legal in 313 A.D. and later calling the Council of Nicaea for the early Church to hammer out their differences, made Jesus divine in order to have stability and peace within his empire. This argument states that, before Constantine, no one thought Jesus was God. This lie was made popular by the Dan Brown novel The Da Vinci Code and is regurgitated ad nauseam as bone fide fact by countless ignorant minds who want to sound educated in ancient Christian thought. I won’t go into great detail on why the early Church viewed Jesus as divine so, instead, I’ll leave you some ante-Nicene quotes by some of our Church Fathers that prove that the Early Church did in fact view Jesus as not only the Messiah but, as God.

"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"  

- St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . "  

- St. Iranaeus (Against Heresies 1:10:1 – 189 AD)

“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things"  

– St. Clement of Alexandria (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 – 190 AD)

“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" 

- Tertullian (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 – 210 AD)

“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" 

- Origen (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 – 225 AD)

“One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " 

- St. Cyprian of Carthage (Letters 73:12 – 253 AD)

“‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" 

- Arnobius (Against the Pagans 1:42 – 305 AD)

“He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" 

– Lactantius (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 – 307 AD)

Easter is pagan. NOT!

HAPPY EASTER!

It may be the Tuesday after Easter but, as Catholics, the Easter Season extends for the next 50 days until the Sunday after Pentecost, which is Trinity Sunday! Over the next 50 days I will be posting a set of posts dealing specifically with Easter. In this post I will debunk certain misconceptions about Easter, in particular, the notion that some people have as to the so-called "pagan origins" of Easter. So enjoy!

Way too many people, especially some Protestants, have falsely and wrongfully accused Roman Catholics of observing the “pagan” holiday/festival of Easter. As far as most of these people are concerned, Easter is proof that Catholicism has its roots in paganism and, therefore, cannot be a true Christian religion. So, in this post I will attempt to disprove and dispel some of these common (and ignorant) misconceptions in order to properly give meaning to the historicity of Easter.

THE ISHTAR = EASTER "CONNECTION"

One of the common, if not THEE most often cited reason as to why Easter has to be pagan is due to the “fact” that it comes from the Springtime pagan festival of the goddess Ishtar. As it is often cited in this erroneous “fact,” many claim that the name for Easter itself comes from the name Ishtar or, from the Greek spelling of Ishtar which is Astarte*. On the surface, it would seem logical to make the assumption that Ishtar/Astarte = Easter.

Facebook memes, the ultimate source of information.

If we assume that Ishtar/Astarte is where we get the word and the celebration of Easter from, we have to recognize that Ishtar was an ancient Babylonian goddess who was worshiped in Mesopotamia in what is currently present day Iraq. So, before we can fully dive into the origin of the word Easter, let’s quickly look at what the "Easter is pagan" individual has come to incorrectly presuppose to be the truth.

According to them, Easter comes to us via the biblical figure Nimrod. Nimrod was Noah’s great-grandson and, according to Scripture, he was “mighty upon the earth” as well as a “mighty hunter.” As Genesis 10:10-12 states, he was king of Babylon, Assyria Babel and, other kingdoms - he was not only a strong ruler but, by all descriptions, he was a godless despot as well; indeed, Ancient Jewish historian Josephus stated that Nimrod was responsible for the Tower of Babel’s construction, this way, if God ever wanted to inundate the world again, he and his people could survive the flood by climbing the tower. Thus giving Nimrod the opportunity to not only avenge his ancestors but, to take revenge upon God if He ever decided to flood the world again.

Nimrod also promised a sweet, hard rockin' guitar solo from
atop the Tower of Babel.

Nimrod apparently was wedded to a woman named Semiramis. He was eventually killed and dismembered by an enemy and his body parts were sent to different parts of his kingdom. Semiramis, being the new ruler, collected all of the body parts but could not find Nimrod’s penis, this becomes somewhat important because, sometime later, Semiramis is found to be with child. She tells her people that Nimrod has ascended into the Sun and has become the Sun god, Baal, and it was through Baal - via the rays of the sun - that she has become pregnant. She then set herself up as a goddess, changes her name to Ishtar and, naturally, forms a new religion. She eventually gives birth to a son named Tammuz and she is then proclaimed to be the Queen of Heaven which does indeed have some biblical references: in Jeremiah 7:18 we see cakes and drinks being offered to her and in Jeremiah 44:17-25, we see that incense is burned in her honor. Since her husband is the sun-god, she becomes the goddess of the moon; she also becomes the goddess of fertility due to the fact that she was able to miraculously conceive. Later on, Queen Ishtar’s story would include the fact that she was born when a giant egg landed into the Euphrates River.

Her son, Tammuz, also is mentioned in the bible; he is mentioned in Ezekiel8:14-16 in which it is told that some women were wrongfully lamenting an idol of Tammuz in the Jewish Temple as they prayed eastward toward the sun. Tammuz grows up and, much like his father, become a mighty hunter who was fond of rabbits. Unfortunately, Tammuz is eventually gorged to death by a wild boar and Queen Ishtar institutes 40 days of morning and fasting in which her son - who was now one with his father - were both to be worshiped. Queen Ishtar also stated that no meat was to be eaten during these 40 days as well.

Queen Ishtar becomes so powerful that she eventually became a medium between her son and his sun-god father, so much so that if one of her subjects wanted to contact or pray to the now deified Tammuz, they could pray through Queen Ishtar.

So, let’s see what we have: a woman, who conceived a child from God…

Hmmmmm, interesting.

…became the Queen-Mother of her son who was a king…

Wait, a minute...

…she had special cakes and drinks offered to her…

I don't like where this is going...

…as well as incense…

Uh, oh...

…her followers made her a mediator between her son after he died…

Gasp!

…and she was made into the moon goddess…

The Blessed Mother with the moon at her feet! Oh no!

This can only mean one thing:

Catholicism = Pagan! NOT!

I’ve just walked you through the path of the ignorant. As it is seen, one could certainly make a hard case for describing a fundamental element of Catholicism, namely the Virgin Mary, as having a pagan origin. Additionally, it can be ascribed that from the Ishtar legend, we also get the reason as to why we use the symbolism of rabbits and eggs; as it was stated earlier, Ishtar was born when an egg fell from the sky and dropped into the Euphrates. This was called Ishtar's egg and this is where we get "Easter egg" from. As for the rabbit symbology, that comes from Ishtar's son, Tammuz, who - as a hunter - was fond of the speedy little critters and this is where the so-called Easter Bunny came from.

Pretty convincing theory, is it not? I mean let's be honest, that REALLY makes a good an compelling argument, it not only borrows facts from the bible, which no Christian can deny but, it also makes use of the mystical and historical religion of Ishtar. I mean, even the name "Ishtar" itself closely resembles the name "Easter"!!! Well, unfortunately, everything that you've just read is not only a lie but, a rather feeble attempt to debase the Catholic Church's Easter tradition. And, it was made mainstream by a Protestant minister named Alexander Hislop.

Hislop got big time notoriety after the 1919 publication of his book, The Two Babylons:Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.

Alexander Hislop: Anti-Catholic, long winded title author
and, a non-smiling expert.

Hislop's book is pretty much the tome for the entire modern day thought of Easter being pagan, since there literally exists no writing before Hislop that makes the very suspect Ishtar = Easter "connection." By looking backward through history - and through the lens of Protestantism - Hislop detailed in his book his personal view of why Catholicism is of the devil and "true" Christians must never follow Rome or her laws and instead follow the unbiblical notion of using the bible alone through faith alone. The interesting part about Hislop book is that it has been THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED as biased, incorrect and misinformed since it was first published at the beginning of the 20th century.

Honest and scholarly theologian Ralph Woodrow, a Protestant himself, once subscribed to Hislop's hypothesis. After much diligent study, however, Woodrow eventually came to the conclusion that Hislop's methodology was not only unsound but, many times, was found to be fabricated. Woodrow's 1997 book, The Babylon Connection? took Hislop to task and refuted many of Hislop's claim in light of all the new and historical information that has been found since Hislop first put pen to paper. Woodrow demonstrates that the pagan similarities Hislop's argument is based on, whether minute or made up, do not necessary equate Catholicism with paganism, that is, in many of Hislop's cases THERE IS NO CONNECTION.

And, many times, Hislop is grasping at straws. As Woodrow states in regards to Hislop's methodology:

"By this method, one could take virtually anything and do the same - even the "golden arches" at McDonald's! The Encyclopedia Americana (article: "Arch") says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. Since Babylon was called "the golden city" (Isaiah 14:4) can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches?"

The truly sad part of this misconception is that it continues to this day among more fundamentalist pastors. Megachurch evangelical pastor John Hagee has already espoused this poison to his congregation, so anti-Catholic is Hagee, that in 2008, he had to issue an apology for hurtful and ignorant slander against the Holy Catholic Church. Passion for Truth Ministries' pastor, Jim Staley, has an 8-part YouTube video series in which he attempts to show how Easter is not Christian but wholly pagan. The interesting thing is that Staley, whether he knows it or not, goes STEP BY STEP through Alexander Hislop's fallacious and discredited treatise. Renown and fervent anti-Catholic, Jack Chick, has several tracks that distinctly make a point of "paganizing" the Roman Catholic Church, such tracts as The Death Cookie and Why Is Mary Crying? heartily and mindlessly affirm Hislop's slop (pun intended) to the naive and uniformed as being the truth behind the Roman Catholic Church. 

What the Ishtar/Astare =  Easter contention boils down to is this:
1) It was invented by an anti-Catholic Protestant in order to: a) paganize the RCC and discredit it and b) set up an entirely false notion that Catholics worship Mary as a goddess and thus, discrediting the RCC.
2) This wrongful hypothesis has - literally - NO documentation of an Ishtar/Astarte = Easter connection prior to Hislop's writing
3) Hislop's writings have been fully shown to be errant as well as misleading,

In other words, to think that Ishtar's mystery religion is the basis for Easter is to not only endorse fiction but, to foolishly assert a lie perpetuated by a direct hatred for the Roman Catholic Church.

EOSTRE/OSTARA = EASTER
A less used but often cited reason for Easter being pagan is due to the train of thought that it is based upon the goddess Eostre, or, in the Old Germanic, Ostara. Eostre is a pagan goddess that hails from the British Isles and was worshipped by the ancient Anglo-Saxons. She was honored during the month of April which was called by the pagan Anglo-Saxons, Eosturmonath.

Very little is known about Eostre because ONLY ONE person EVER wrote anything about Eostre, that one person just so happens to be a Roman Catholic Saint. Venerable Bede (673-735 A.D.), wrote The Reckoning of Time in the late 7th century and, ALL that we know about Eostre is based on the following two sentences that he wrote:

"Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month," and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance."

Notice that Saint Bede NEVER once mentions anything with regards to the feasts that were held in her honor, nor does he describe the goddess herself, nor do we have any symbology to rabbits or eggs, nor is she mentioned to be worshipped with the Spring Equinox. Indeed, we know nothing about who Eostre was and we have no idea what her followers believed in or did to honor her.

What Bede was doing was trying to describe an ancient calendar that was in use hundreds of years before his time and, more to the point, he was attempting to give reasons behind the names of these ancient English months. Having already gone in length with the Roman and Greek months, Saint Bede - who was English - starts off the 15th chapter of The Reckoning of Time by stating:

"In olden time the English people - for it did not seem fitting to me that I should speak of other nations' observance of the year and yet be silent about my own nation's - calculated their months according to the course of the Moon. Hence, after the manner of the Greeks and the Romans, [the months] take their name from the Moon, for the Moon is called 'mona' and the month 'monath.'

The first month, which the Latins call January, is Giuli; February is called Solmonath; March is Hrethmonath; April, Eosturmonath; May, Thrimilchi; June, Litha; July, also Litha; August, Weodmonath; Semptember, Halegmonath; October, Winterfilleth; November, Blodmonath; December, Giuli, the same name by which January is called. They began the year on the 8th kalends of January [25 December], when we celebrate the birth of the Lord. That night, which we hold so sacred, they used to call by the heathen word 'Modranecht,' that is 'mother's night', because (we suspect) of the ceremonies they enacted all that night."

It is at this point that Bede goes on to give an etymological reason for the names of the months. Basically, he took what he knew about the Old English language and, working backwards, attempted to give meaning to what those months meant using contemporary English words. If we were to continue in Chapter 15 of The Reckoning of Time, we see the following:

"The months of Giuli derive their name from the day when the Sun turns back and begins to increase...Solmonath can be called the "month of cakes," which they offered to their gods in that month. Hrethmonath is named for their goddess Hretha, to whom they sacrificed at this time...Eosturmonath has the name which is now tralsated 'Paschal month,' and which was once called after a goddes of their named Eostre...Thrimilchi was so called because in that month the cattle were milked three times a day...Litha means 'gentle' or 'navigable' because in these months the calm breezes are gentle and they were wont to sail upon the smooth sea. Weodmonath mean 'mont of tares,' for they are very plentiful then. Halegmonath means 'month of sacred rites.' Winterfilleth can be called by the invented composite name 'winter-full.' Blodmonath is 'month of immolations' for then the cattle which were to be slaughtered were consecrated to their gods. Good Jesu, thanks be to thee, who hast turned us away from these vanities and given us [grace] to offer to the the sacrifice of praise."

Easily seen then is that Saint Bede was simply trying to explain where the name for the month of Eostremonath came from. As an Englishman, Saint Bede took the only word - IN ENGLISH - that made sense and attributed it to an ancient and relatively unknown goddess who apparently had a month named after her. The interesting thing here is that NO archaeological records exist for Eostre: no temples, no amulets, no ancient writings, no ancient pictures, no hymns, NOTHING. There are NO Anglo-Saxon records for such a goddess either, this is especially noteworthy considering that these Germanic peoples wrote about other gods, such as Odin, Thor, Frigga, Baldr and, many others. And yet, no mention about a goddess named Eostre! The only historical reference of such a goddess ever existing comes to us exclusively from a Roman Catholic Saint who speculated as to the origin of the name, of one of the months, of an ancient English pagan calendar. It is also interesting to note that Saint Bede finds it necessary to explain to the reader who Eostre was, proving that, nobody had ever heard of this goddess before.

Eostre's story would have been lost had it not been for author, linguist and, German mythologist named Jakob Grimm who, in the early 19th century, re-envisioned this ancient goddess and renamed her Ostara. In his book, Teutonic Mythology,** Grimm states the following in regards to Eostre or, as he has termed her, Ostara:

"Ostara, seems therefore to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light, a spectacle that brings joy and blessing whose meaning could be easily adapted to the resurrection-day of the christian's God...here also heathen notion seems to have grafted themselves on great christian festivals. Maidens clothed in white, who at Easter, at the season of returning spring, show themselves in clefts of the rock and on mountains, are suggestive of the ancient goddess."

Gimm himself states that pagans, i.e., heathens tie themselves to Christian festivals which could be taken to mean that the "great Christian festivals" might just pre-date Eostre/Ostara worship. Lastly, it must also be stated that Jakob Grim is one-half of the famed Brother's Grimm.

That's right, Jakob and his brother Wilhelm are responsible for such time honored classics as Cinderella, Snow White, Rapunzel, Hansel and Gretel and, many other fairy tales; what this basically means is that the second oldest mention of Eostre being a goddess comes from an author of fairy tales, if that doesn't make you wonder at the validity of such a goddess ever existing, then you're simply not taking the facts into consideration.

This is an picture of Ostara, circa 1901. Or, better stated, a picture of a goddess
1,200 years after she was first mentioned and who probably didn't even exist.
Note the symbolism of Easter in the picture added onto Eostre by the 20th century.

So, to recap:
1) Eostre was first mentioned as a goddess because a Roman Catholic Saint from the British Isles was trying to give a reason behind the ancient name of a month.
2) There is absolutely NO historical record for such a goddess to have ever existed
3) Eostre/Ostara = Easter was popularized in the 19th century by the Brother's Grimm, who are renown for their fairy tales.


THE NAME GAME IS NO GAME AT ALL

The final issue that we must address with all of these presumed goddess' is that of their names. The truly ignorant will casually make mention of how Ishtar, Astarte, Eostre, Ostara "look like" and "sound like" the word Easter. This is simply a linguistic and etymological error; In the case of Ishtar we must realize that she was worshiped in ancient Mesopotamia and the language spoken at that time was Akkadian, a Semitic dialect whereas the word "Easter" itself, is an English word that comes from the Germanic language. Roughly stated, THERE IS NO WAY THAT AN ANCIENT AKKADIAN WORD COULD EQUATE AN ENGLISH WORD, there is simply no possible way that the Semitic word Ishtar - which predated the entire English language - could not of traveled over 3,000 miles from ancient Iraq to the British Isle to mean the same thing as a Germanic word before the Germanic language existed to give birth to the English word for Easter.

As for Eostre, as it has already been stated, Bede simply used the English word "Easter" to denote the Old English pagan month for April. Given the fact that by Saint Bede's time Easter was being celebrated by the Christians, it is plausible that this Saint, as venerable as he may be, was wrong in associating a Christian observance with a goddess that may have never existed. Playing the "name game" with any ancient-to-modern words, or vice versa, requires a lot of proof and far too often words get bandied about as having this meaning or that meaning. Therefore, if anyone ever suggests that Easter comes from a pagan goddess' name simply because it "sounds/looks the same," one must be very careful as to not mix fact with fiction and, as I have demonstrated, the Ishtar/Astarte/Eostre/Ostara = Easter arguments, are all rooted in myth and fables that dissolve once they are thoroughly scrutinized.





* Ishtar/Astarte is biblically referred to as Ashtoreth as noted in 1 Kings 11:5, Judges 10:6, and, 1 Samuel 7:4
** See Teutonic Mythology Volume 1, page 291.