Catholic Apologetics Tip

Catholic Apologetics Tip September 6, 2014

When a Fundamentalist tells you you are a pagan because some Catholic feast falls in a pagan sacred day, ask them what day of the week it is.

"Whoever thought up the slur, that Mother Theresa was someone at odds with the Church ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Free will to resist grace, available to all, and to reject good. God loves us ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Dave G.

    When I was a pastor of my third congregation, we had our first staff meeting. I explained to the staff that I liked delving into advent rather than just having Christmas. One of the associate pastors objected, saying that was too Catholic. I responded, “You celebrate Christmas don’t you?” Sometimes those can get people thinking. Of course in that case it caused a pretty long discussion.

    • Ye Olde Statistician

      And why do they always forget about the Orthodox?

      • Garbanzo Bean

        Because nothing happened between Constantine and Luther, except Naughty Papists.

    • JJG

      My first encounter with Protestant crackpottery came in the form of Ralph Woodrow’s Babylon Mystery Religion, which was handed me by a co-worker. (Some of his friends used to leave Chick tracts on the table in the lunchroom, just for good measure.) And, as I’m sure you know, he used to object to the “pagan” celebration of Christmas and Easter. I think the latter was okay if you called it “Resurrection Day”, and Hallowe’en was okay if you called it “Reformation Day” and went about dressed as Martin Luther or John Calvin.

      Anyway, Ralph eventually saw how silly it all was (“No Christian who puts a bumper sticker with a fish symbol on the back of his car has ever done so to honor the fish-god Dagon,”) and issued a retraction: http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html . He even allowed as how celebrating Christmas might not be the apotheosis of evil. For his trouble, he got some of the most vicious hate mail I’ve ever seen, poor man. He no longer publishes BMR, but others have made sure it stays in print, and the comments on Amazon make it clear that hateful insanity never gets old: http://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Mystery-Religion-Ancient-Modern/dp/091693800X .

      As far as the “Paul invented Christianity” thing, it has been taken up by atheists, but I’ve also encountered some sect of Christians that seem to have embraced it. Unfortunately the rules of the forum in which I first encountered this precluded my asking the name of the sect, so I don’t have any context for it. A Jewish friend gave me a copy of one of A. N. Wilson’s books along this line, but knowing his background, I haven’t got around to reading it. I’m sure I’ll get to it right after I’ve finished with Dr. Sungenis’ two-volume extravaganza on geocentrism, and that will happen after I’ve rearranged my twentieth sock drawer. There’s more information on this line of “thought”, if you are interested, here:
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-st-paul-invent-Christianity
      The connection with Nietzsche doesn’t surprise me. So much of the homicidal insanity of our times can be laid at the feet of the spittle-flecked ravings of that syphilitic madman. But, of course, it relies on the notion that some academic, or just a regular Joe with a bible, 19 or 20 (or 16!) centuries after the fact would somehow be a more reliable witness than the contemporaries of the Apostles, and the rest of our poor, deluded selves were just waiting for them to come along and set us straight. But then, so much of Protestantism (and in particular Mormonism) relies on the idea that things went wrong sometime soon after the Apostolic age, the “real” invisible Church went underground, and only emerged when the sect in question came to the fore. Except nobody tells the same story. I call this the “invisible green dragon” theory, because if it’s invisible, how do you know it’s green? or a dragon? Similarly, if the church is invisible, how do you know its particular characteristics, or if it’s a church at all?

      • JJG

        Sorry about the formatting problem. Hopefully the tag is now closed.

        • Dave G.

          In fairness, Protestants who rejected all of the holidays were consistent. And Reformation day is still a day I remember, to remind me that even the Church has had its periods when all was not well. As for hate, that door goes both ways I’m afraid. Early on, I was ready to fight some of those anti-Catholics that came after me when I entered the Church. But I’ve seen some pretty raw things said about Protestants over the years to the point I just keep my head down and focus on other things most of the time. BTW, the formatting was fine.

          • JJG

            I’m truly sorry you experienced any hatred from Catholics. I can only say that, as a cradle Catholic, I never held any animosity toward Protestants, and was never encouraged to do so by anyone. While there may be polemics against Protestant beliefs, I know of none which misrepresent those beliefs. We do argue against Protestant distinctives, and hopefully understand what we ague against accurately, but I’m completely unaware of any Catholic equivalent to Hislop, Boettner, Dave Hunt, Jack Chick, James White, etc., etc. If such do exist, I apologize for it.
            To give you an example, the local nondenominational church has a banner with a representation of a dove on it. I know perfectly well it represents the Holy Spirit, and would never try to accuse them of avian idolatry connected with the worship of Osiris. That would be bearing false witness, and behavior no Christian should engage in. Similarly, since it was mentioned, I know of no Catholic polemic which equates Reformation Day with Samhain, the day when evil spirits are given free reign on the earth, because the reformers were in league with those evil spirits. Again, that would be bearing false witness. But unfortunately, as you know, certain Protestants do make that equation, and use the Eve of All Saints (it’s a solemnity, so in Jewish fashion, we begin the November 1st celebration with First Vespers [Evening Prayer] on October 31st) as evidence for the general demonic nature of all things Catholic. Naturally, though, since we’re not ascended angels, but human beings, when we’re goaded with false accusations beyond human endurance, and no amount of reasoning seems to make the slightest dent in the wall of irrationality, some of us are going to lose our tempers and return like for like. We shouldn’t.
            If you could shed some light on why this misrepresentation is done, I’d appreciate it, because I can’t imagine it’s an effective tactic with anyone who has the most passing acquaintance with the Catholic faith. The whole thing utterly mystifies me.
            The formatting problem I was apologizing for was the last couple of paragraphs in my previous post being entirely in italics. Disqus occasionally locks up my browser window, and I think I may have opened an italics tag when I was recovering from one of those lockups.

            • Dave G.

              I’m glad you haven’t been that way. Most haven’t. Just like most Protestants aren’t overly antagonistic at this point toward Catholicism. Still, there are those who are. On both sides. The animosity goes back centuries I’m afraid. And while Catholics may unintentionally misrepresent various aspects of Protestantism, the same is true of most Protestants. I think if Catholics made a better effort of getting out and explaining the faith (it isn’t easy getting Catholics to speak about the Faith – I know this from experience), they might be shocked at how many today might give the Church a second look.

              FWIW, most Protestants I’ve met who became Catholic actually came, not from mainline and liberal leaning denominations, but from those rascally fundamentalist ones. Why? Passion and zeal. Convince them that the Faith is True, and I doubt the gates of Hell will keep them from converting.

              • JJG

                Thank you for your reply, Dave. I appreciate hearing your perspective.

                It’s a gross generalization, but in my experience most converts to Catholicism think their way into the Church, i.e., become convinced through (usually Scripturally-based) argumentation, whereas most cradle Catholics like me grow up surrounded by Catholic culture. Or, if you will, converts come in with a Catholic “head” while cradle Catholics grow up with a Catholic “heart”. The task of each of us is to acquire the missing parts. But if argumentation is what makes converts, then converts are best equipped to make other converts. I think this is why converts seem to be more involved with Evangelization (I’m thinking about Marcus Grodi’s “Coming Home Network”, for example) than cradle Catholics. That’s not to excuse us – we really have to do better – but an attempt to explain how things are.

  • Petey

    the Friends knew this, which is why they call the days First, Second etc. the months too. they were pretty well fundamentalist at the start, but they were consistent about it.

  • Benjamin Martin

    Anyone who believes Paul’s Greco-Roman mysteries he syncretized to the Jewish religion holds to a Pagan Christ myth. Jesus would be aghast at being turned into a Platonic Redeemer, and actually taught against the Platonic myths Paul attached to his legacy.

    • Jesus: He is not the God of the dead, but of the living… [LK 20.38]
    • Paul: “…Lord of the dead and the living.” [RO 14.9]

    […] they perform their ritual, and persuade not only individuals, but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be made by sacrifices and amusements which fill a vacant hour, and are equally at the service of the living and the dead; the latter sort they call mysteries, and they redeem us from the pains of hell, but if we neglect them no one knows what awaits us.

    Plato (4th century BC) The Republic. Book II.
    classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

    Jesus: Follow me. [MT 9.9, MK 2.14, LK 9.59, JN 1.43]
    Paul: Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me… [1CO 4.16]

    Paul didn’t want people following Jesus, he wanted them following his pagan/jewish syncretism.

    • chezami

      “Paul invented Christianity” theology. How quaint! Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

      You do realize, don’t you that Luke is a disciple of Paul and sees no conflict between this saying of Jesus and Paul’s teaching (since he also records Jesus talking with the very dead Moses, not to mention rising from the dead).

      You also realize that the Twelve, not Paul, are the source of the Tradition Paul explicated and had no problem with him?

      • Benjamin Martin

        I rather think you the atheist, worshiping a pagan myth. And there is plenty of conflict between the Jewish Jesus and the Pagan Paul.

        Jesus: Call no man your father. [MT 23.9]
        Paul: You have only one spiritual father. For I became your father…when I preached to you. [1CO 4.15]

        Jesus: Rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. [MK 10.42]
        Paul: So even if I boast somewhat freely about the authority the Lord gave us… [1CO 10.8]

        Jesus: You have received without payment, so give without payment. [MT 10.8]
        Paul: Those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. [1CO 9.14]

        Hey, a guy’s gotta make a livin’ somehow.

        • The Lost Dutchman

          Well, if we’re going to start dragging unrelated Internet pictures into this…

          • The Lost Dutchman

            Dammit, my picture of the LOLWUT pear didn’t load.

          • Benjamin Martin

            Never heard of the “Bling Bishop?” Google the term.

            • The Lost Dutchman

              I have heard of him- but since he was removed by the Vatican when they found out, I don’t think he’s the best example of Catholic teaching on this subject.

        • Dave G.

          What translation are you using, out of curiosity? Also, some of the passages you reference appear taken out of context. For instance, 1 Cor. 4:15, his full statement includes ‘for in Christ Jesus, I became your father.’ That makes a difference given what you’re suggesting, even without taking into consideration that the same word can be used in different ways in different circumstances.

          • Benjamin Martin

            Nothing is out of context. Learn the academic sense of the word, and quit using the word as a magic wand to make troublesome passages and contradictions vanish.

            • Dave G.

              Using words means using all the words, not just the ones that prove a point. The video has nothing to do with what you’ve done. To say Paul is setting himself up as opposed to Jesus by eliminating the clear reference to Jesus in the passage you’ve quoted is taking something out of context. You do understand that, correct? And again, which translation are you using?

              • Benjamin Martin

                I can’t wait to see that applied. Apparently the whole Bible has to be quoted, otherwise any verse, chapter, or book is being quoted out of context. Even though, as you already admitted, I proved my point.

                • Dave

                  Uh, no. The whole Bible wouldn’t have to be quoted in this case. Just including the key passages in a sentence when the sentence is being used to prove a point. And again, which translation are you using? Is there a reason you aren’t answering that simple question?

                  • Benjamin Martin

                    Juxtaposing key passages is what got you all upset.

                    Put the verse in biblehub.com and find out what version it is. Do you need some help with that?

                    • Dave G.

                      I’m not upset. I just point out an issue in one of the passages you quoted. Eliminating a key part of the passage that changes the entire assumptions behind the sentence is the problem. You’re trying to set Paul against Jesus, and I noticed the passage you quoted was missing a key part in which Paul points to Jesus. That’s big. That’s a major omission in the context and meaning of the passage. And that’s not even referencing the entire context of the letter as a whole, as well as the events Paul is addressing. This is why prooftexting is generally not the best way to address topics, no matter what the point being made happens to be.

                      And it appears you’re using the New Living Translation. The NRSV, RSV, and NASB are a few that scholars prefer. Just an FYI.

            • Garbanzo Bean

              Cute video, but it applies to “Bible Fundamentalist” types, not to Catholics. Catholics and Orthodox have a radically different understanding and approach to scripture than the extemist fundamentalist, literalist, “da bible is da wurd a god period” crowd does.

              • Benjamin Martin

                It applies to those who misuse the word “context” to explain away embarrassing passages and contradictions.

                • chezami

                  You do realize the the gospels you quote as contradicting Paul *also* record that Jesus said he was going to die and rise again and that he did so. So I have to presume you are playing the silly game of only crediting those sayings you happen to like while dismissing the rest as “Pauline interpolations”. Correct?

                  • Benjamin Martin

                    You presume wrong, while you demonstrate you haven’t the slightest clue to the academic meaning of “context.”

                    • Dave G.

                      What exactly is this academic meaning of context?

                    • chezami

                      Ah! So you are an *academic* when you play “pit selected line from Paul and Jesus against each other” games. Tell me about your academic titles and published papers. I’m dying to know.

                    • Benjamin Martin

                      scholar.google.com/scholar?q=context+text

                      Again, it’s not about me, even if you dishonestly keep trying to make it about me personally. I just want you to use “context” properly, instead of as a magic wand to make contradictions and embarrassing passages vanish.

                    • chezami

                      In other words, you are not a scholar.

                    • Benjamin Martin

                      Bad logic. Do you engage only in personal smears?

                    • Dave G.

                      OK. Context. First, you don’t get to drop key words and phrases from a sentence that significantly alter the meaning of the sentence if they remain. Second, you have to look at the way the words are being used, the argument in question, the purpose of the writing in question. Third, you should consider the historical and cultural contexts as well. You have to admit to words being used differently in different contexts. Those are just a few off the top. You don’t just randomly jot down a series of passages, cut them off and eliminate words that could be significant, and then draw a conclusion. Not in any credible approach to biblical studies. Or the study of anything else for that matter.

                    • Benjamin Martin

                      Nothing key was dropped, and reference was provide. Really, what you’re protesting is that I identified contradictions that you simply want to wish away.

                    • Dave G.

                      OK, good faith here. I’m assuming you’re not a troll. So let’s try it again. You say that Paul didn’t want people following Jesus, but his own myth version. That’s a fairly common alternative to historic Christian, with variations over the years. So you list several passages to, I suppose, demonstrate. The one that caught my eye first was 1 Cor 4:15. Never mind that it’s entirely possible that the two were speaking to different situations, and therefore meaning different things. What caught me was your posting. You had :

                      Paul: You have only one spiritual father. For I became your father…when I preached to you. [1CO 4.15]

                      Yet the whole verse is this:

                      15 For even if you had ten thousand others to teach you about Christ, you have only one spiritual father. For I became your father in Christ Jesus when I preached the Good News to you.

                      See that little thing you left out was the one you’re trying to suggest Paul was scooting out of the picture. Not that your argument is therefore wrong because of this. But it’s been shown you’ve selectively edited a verse in order to make a point. And for most, that sends up caution flags right there.

                      Oh, and again, the Living Bible is not the one used by most scholars to make points. Nor are you supposed to bounce about from translation to translation to find the words the help support an argument. Stick to one (RSV is a good one) and then unpack the arguments accordingly.

                    • Dave G.

                      Oh, and lest you pounce. I’m not saying you can’t use different translations. Consulting various translations can be helpful. Find a passage, and then examine different ways it has been translated. You just don’t get to bounce about looking for whatever words in this translation fit the argument here, and another translation of another verse there. That’s considered sloppy. At best.

                • Garbanzo Bean

                  Is context never relevant in a discussion of the meaning of texts? How about figures of speech, such as metaphor, rabbinic hyperbole, anthropomorphism, and the like? Do you really think the quotes from Jesus and Paul actually constitute some kind of logical contradiction?

              • Dave G.

                In fairness, I know Bible Fundamentalist types who wouldn’t use these arguments. Oh, and FWIW, it doesn’t help Catholics’ reputation by mocking Christians who do cherish the Word of God, even if they are wrong in their understanding of the Scriptures from a historic POV. That plays into stereotypes Catholics would do well to avoid.

                • Garbanzo Bean

                  “Bible Fundamentalists” are typically Fideist, rejecting human thought (including the faculty of Reason) as corrupted by sin. For this reason they hold the bible as prior over and above science, and may even make odd claims like “the devil hid those fossils to deceive mankind.”
                  I am not sure what you mean by those who “cherish the Word of God.” Are you aware that that phrase is misapplied when used to refer to the bible?

        • chezami

          Classic Fundamentalist proof-texting. Takes me back.

          • Benjamin Martin

            Classic Fundamentalist brush-off. As expected.

        • Alma Peregrina

          Benjamin Martin’s said this, contradicting himself:
          BJ – “I rather think you the ATHEIST…”
          BJ – “… WORSHIPING a PAGAN myth”

          Atheists, by definition, aren’t pagan and don’t worship.
          So…
          CONTRADICTION!

          Since Benjamin Martin has contradicted himself, I’m perfectly justified in dismissing everything else he says out of hand and to mock him on every ocasion, on and off-topic, because I don’t have any other worthwhile goal in my life.

          So let’s begin, shall we?

          LOL! You’re stewpid! How can you contradict yourself so blatantly? Aint I so smart for noticing it? Aint I so much smarter that you? Why can’t you be more like me? You’re hilarious! ROFL!

          • Benjamin Martin

            If you’re truly going to swing that way, then you’re basically arguing that Catholics are indeed paralleling Pagan ways, both worshiping a dying-rising solar-deity.

            Thou hast said it yourself.

            • Alma Peregrina

              Poor unfortunate mind. Not only is your thought completely contradictory, you can’t even read. How can people take your quoting of the Bible seriously when you can’t even read?

              All I’ve done was to point out the contradiction in your comment and then apply your own logic to said contradiction. But in your illogical mind, you’ve morphed that into a tacit admission that you had any point at all to.

              If you’re truly going to swing that way, then by pointing out the alleged contradictions between Jesus and Paul, then you are tacitly admiting that both are correct.

              I mean, it is obvious! If you say that Jesus and Paul are contradictory, you are indeed arguing that you believe in both.

              Which makes Catholicism… true.

              Thou hast said it yourself.

  • Win.

  • Joseph

    Bam. Reminds me of a conversation I had with my Southern Reformed Baptist relatives regarding alcohol… because they were telling me how eeeevvviiilll it is and how proper Christians stay away from it which is another thing that makes it evident that Catholics worship the anti-Christ.
    .
    Me: You believe that Jesus is God, right?
    Them: Yep.
    Me: You believe that God can’t sin and would never lead His worshippers to sin, right?
    Them: Yep.
    Me: You realise that Christ God drank wine, commanded that wine be used as his blood during the Last Supper, and even changed water into wine at a wedding because the party goers had actually run out, right?
    Them: What are you gettin’ at, exactly?

    • Marthe Lépine

      And I heard somewhere that the urns used to collect the water at Cana were huge, several gallons each…

    • JJG

      “Grape juice bibber” (c.f., Matt. 11:19) was a terrible insult in the ancient world, you know.

  • JJG

    One could note further that in the liturgical calendar, the Latin names of the days of the week are:

    Dominica (“The Lord’s Day” [Sunday])
    Feria Secunda (“The Second Day” [Monday])
    Feria Tertia (“The Third Day” [Tuesday])
    Feria Quarta (“The Fourth Day” [Wednesday])
    Feria Quinta (“The Fifth Day” [Thursday])
    Feria Sexta (“The Sixth Day” [Friday])
    Sabbato (“The Sabbath Day” [Saturday])

    So we Catholics of the Latin Rite, at least formally, are so not-pagan that we don’t even use their icky, icky names for the days of the week, and we also distinguish between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath Day, which should shut up the Seventh Day Adventists (but won’t, because nothing does).

    Neener-neener boo-boo!

    • Benjamin Martin

      Sorry, the Latin days are actually:
      dies Sōlis
      dies Lūnae
      dies Martis
      dies Mercuri
      dies Iovis
      dies Veneris
      dies Saturn
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_days_of_the_week

      • Alma Peregrina

        Oh, Mr. Academic knows Wikipedia! LOL!

        Actually JJG is correct. He is talking about latin LITURGICAL days of the week. And I should know, because in my country that is the proper naming of the days of the week. No pagan gods in the days’ names for us, no sir.

        Read this and compare the portuguese naming with JJG’s list.

        http://gobrazil.about.com/od/travelportuguese/qt/daynames.htm

        • Benjamin Martin

          “the Latin names of the days of the week are”

          False statement. I corrected it. Howl if you wish.

          • T-Roy

            proof texting 101…. What was actually written: “that in the liturgical calendar, the Latin names of the days of the week are:”
            What you said was written “”the Latin names of the days of the week are””

            • Benjamin Martin

              The Latin days are indeed pagan in name. You’ll have to deal with that best you can.

              • Garbanzo Bean

                Perhaps you dont understand the point here. Only fundies are bothered about whether any word has a pagan origin or not. Most words in most languages are pagan in origin. Are you a fundie-turned-atheist that you dont get this?

                • chezami

                  The vast majority of internet atheists are biblical fundamentalists. They just don’t happen to be believers.

                  • Benjamin Martin

                    Not an atheist. That’s bearing false witness. Naughty, naughty.

                  • Garbanzo Bean

                    This Martin Benjamin fellow seems to be just a troll, incapable of any serious conversation, but highly susceptible to holier-than-thou. I believe I have learned to ignore him.

                • Benjamin Martin

                  Are you calling JJG a fundie? You nasty brute.

                  • Garbanzo Bean

                    Careful, “brute” is a pagan word.

                    • Benjamin Martin

                      Yeah? So is Christ.

                      ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ” = Christ

                      The Chi-Rho symbol was also used by pagan Greek scribes to mark, in the margin, a particularly valuable or relevant passage; the combined letters Chi and Rho standing for chrēston, meaning “good.”[2] Some coins of Ptolemy III Euergetes (r. 246–222 BC) were marked with a Chi-Rho.[3]

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_Rho

                    • Garbanzo Bean

                      So what? The entire Greek language is pagan. You think that is a bad thing, some kind of insult. Why?

                    • Benjamin Martin

                      Pagan just means “farmer” or “country bumpkin.” You think that is a bad thing, some kind of insult. Why?

                    • Garbanzo Bean

                      No, I’m fine with it. Sorry, I thought you had something to offer, I misunderstood.

                    • Dave G.

                      By that logic, gay just means happy, so why the fuss?

                  • JJG

                    Thank you, Mr. Martin, but it’s by no means the worst thing I’ve been called. One time, in the space of a few hours, I was a Nazi, a Communist, a Muslim, a pagan, a statue-worshiper, a lizard creature from outer space, a zombie, a dementate, a crypto-Jew, an anti-Semite, a war monger, a peacenik, a hippie, a Republican, and a Satanist. Never mind that a number of these labels are mutually exclusive. So I think I can take care of myself.

                    Actually, I’m a retired physicist and mathematician, who’s a bit distressed at seeing science misused by people who are apparently entirely ignorant of its underlying philosophy.

                    • Garbanzo Bean

                      Have you read Flynn’s “Great Ptolemaic Smackdown”?

        • JJG

          Thank you, AP. Apparently Mr. Martin has some problems with reading comprehension. Thanks also for the information about Brazil; it’s a fascinating culture, which I’m coming to appreciate more and more.

          • Alma Peregrina

            Thank you for your words JJG, but I’m not a brasilian. I’m portuguese. It just so happens that the only english-speaking site I found about portuguese names of the week was brasilian.

            But regarding portuguese names of the week, there’s an interesting story behind it.

            You see, contrary to what our troll-friend says, the Church has never accepted the pagan names of the week. The Church has always been uncomfortable with christian naming the week days after pagan gods. Portugal is the living proof of that.

            Through the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Middle Ages, popes have tried to “impose” on christian countries the latin liturgical naming. But those countries were too lazy to heed the popes exhortations. They thought it would be very hard to simply change the naming from their pagan origins, so they kept them as they were.

            From all the European countries, only Portugal accepted the Church’s advice.

            That is why you have pagan week names in spanish, french, italian, english and german-speaking countries (each according to it’s pagan origin)…

            … and that’s why you have portuguese-speaking coutries with Domingo, Segunda-Feira, Terça-Feira, Quarta-Feira, Quinta-Feira, Sexta-Feira and Sábado.

            Pax Christi

      • chezami

        Clearly you are a pagan syncretist and moon worshipper since you call today Monday, Benjamin.

        • chezami

          And what’s with “Martin” as a last name and “Benjamin” as a first name. Clearly you are believer in Jewish/

          • Garbanzo Bean

            I’m inclined to believe Mr Martin is a Mormon, or post-Mormon but not atheist. “Benjamin” is a common surname in SLC. Re. Jewishness, they do think they are the troo jooz; they believe that from the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, God had no authentic house of worship on Earth until the Mormon’s built their temple. They state this clearly in the videos that play in their temple visitors centre.
            It would have been nice if he actually made a point, stated a position, or done something other than troll about nonsensically.
            BTW im the person who used to be “Gary”, my brother said that was too boring.

        • Benjamin Martin

          Clearly you can’t discuss facts in any sense of honesty, and must resort to trying to smear people personally. Oh well, you can’t burn us at the stake anymore, so you’ll have to be satisfied with third grade taunts.

          • chezami

            Dude, if you are going to quote the gospels vs. Paul you at least need to have the honest to face the fact that they say, just as much as Paul does that Jesus saw himself as God and as a dying and rising savior. Otherwise you are just playing fundamentalist proof text games.

    • ImTim

      JJG, can you point me to the source on this? It’s new to me.

      Thanks.

      • JJG

        Yes, Tim. Just take a look at the Graduale Romanum, any edition will do.

      • Alma Peregrina

        I don’t know about other sources, but I can tell you that Portugal is the living proof of what JJC has said.

        You see, contrary to what our troll-friend says, the Church has never accepted the pagan names of the week. The Church has always been uncomfortable with christian naming the week days after pagan gods. Portugal is the living proof of that.

        Through the Fall of the Roman Empire to the Middle Ages, popes have tried to “impose” on christian countries the latin liturgical naming. But those countries were too lazy to heed the popes exhortations. They thought it would be very hard to simply change the naming from their pagan origins, so they kept them as they were.

        From all the European countries, only Portugal accepted the Church’s advice.

        That is why you have pagan week names in spanish, french, italian, english and german-speaking countries (each according to it’s pagan origin)…

        … and that’s why you have portuguese-speaking coutries with Domingo, Segunda-Feira, Terça-Feira, Quarta-Feira, Quinta-Feira, Sexta-Feira and Sábado.

        Pax Christi