Friday, April 13, 2018

Professing Polytheism

If you are in one of the Church of God splinters that came out of Herbert W Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, then I have some unpleasant news for you - you are a polytheist!

Don't tell me that surprises you. (It sure was a surprise to me when I first found out.)

This whole post got started while we were reviewing the COGWA's "Origin of Easter" article and we noticed the author belittling the idea of polytheism and associating it with paganism. We chuckled at first until we realized that he was serious. But ...then the COGWA was really belittling itself. So here we are today to demonstrate that Armstrongism is indeed polytheistic and so COGWA shouldn't be pretending like that's not a fact, and most certainly should not be pointing fingers at others and insinuating others are pagans for their polytheism.


I love history, and this is my blog post, so we're starting with some history. I promise to keep it simple.

Back in the early 200s AD there started an idea that says there is only one God, while the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just three different ways that this one God presents Himself to us; "modes" if you will. This idea is called by many names today, among which are Sabellianism, Modalism, Monarchianism, Patripassionism, and etc. One of the main teachers of this view was Sabellius. If you are new to Christianity or maybe you are really trying to get away from the Trinity doctrine, this view of God might even make logical sense to you. Good thing most people eventually give this up. Maybe some day we will go into detail on why this view of God cannot work. If you really want something right away, read Tertullian's "Against Praxaes" and Hippolytus' "Against Noetus" (and keep clearly in mind that these were written in the early 200s). But for the purposes of this blog post, let's just say that the early church was very much opposed to this view.

In the early 300's, along comes a guy named Arius. Arius was one of many Christian leaders around the world who were passionately opposed to Sabellius and his Modalism. So Arius came up with his own view to oppose Sabellius. He went too far in the other direction. According to Arius, Jesus is a created being and is completely separate being from the Father. This view of God started to attract attention and eventually Christianity was split over the nature of God between those who agreed with Arius and those who had a more Trinitarian position. Both halves were opposed to Sabellius. It was this division that motivated Constantine to call the Council of Nicea to settle the issue and reunite Christians. Arius actually accused Niceans of Sabellianism. The decision came down against Arius.

After Nicea, Arianism changed and blended with Trinitarianism. Since all were required to abide by the decision at Nicea, people who still held to Arianism (including Arius) had to try and force their views to make peace with the decision of the Council - at least on the surface. This new view has the Father and the Son as separate beings, but they share a similar substance. The Son is like the Father. They are two separate Gods who consist of the same kind of stuff. This new view is given the name Semi-Arianism. The West held to Nicea but there were so many people in the East holding to this new Semi-Arian view in violation of Nicea that another Council was called, this time at Constantinople.
And the view was indeed new to the fourth century. It was not old or original by any means, as some COG writers might have us believe. Such a claim is simply not true.

In summary, anyone who believes that the Father and the Son are two separate God beings but consist of the same sort of stuff fall into the Semi-Arian category. This is the official view of Armstrongism. The COGs teach the Father and the Son are two completely separate beings made of the same stuff, and the same stuff that the Father and the Son consist of is called the Holy Spirit. I want to point out that there are two Holy Spirits here - the Father's and the Son's.

Armstrongism is Semi-Arian.


The Jews truly believe in one God. They are monotheists. Islam, which seems to be a combination of Ebionite Christianity and Gnosticism, believe in one God. They are also monotheists.

When Jesus arrived and demonstrated that He is both God and distinct from the Father, using language like "the Father and I are one" and "My God! Why have You forsaken Me?" the issue became complicated. How can Christianity be monotheistic, like Judaism, but still recognize the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit)? The answer that the early church offered is Trinitarianism. There is only one God being of one substance, but three personalities or minds. One God in three persons. Trinitarian Christianity is monotheistic. One God.

Semi-Arianism has two Gods, the Father and the Son, who are truly separate from one another. "God" is a family.
This can be seen in the way Armstrongism teaches how Jesus took on human flesh. According to Armstrongism, God the Son completely divested Himself of Godhood and became 100% man in every way. (This is called Monophysitism.) Yet, the Father was utterly unaffected by this because He is a separate God being. So, how many Gods do we have here? Two! Is that monotheism? No. Is is Binitarianism? No. Despite how some COGs writers try to use the phrases Binity and Semi-Arian as synonyms, they most certainly are not synonymous at all. A Binity is monotheistic; one God in two persons. We don't have that here. We have Semi-Arianism. Two distinct Gods. Armstrongism would condemn Binitarianism. Armstrongism does not have one God; it has two.

Two Gods = Polytheism.



Back in August 2010 we wrote a piece called "Primer to the Trinity Doctrine." In this article we tried to explain the Trinity. Please don't be afraid of that article! We made it pretty clear that we weren't trying to push the idea, just show our readers what the Trinity Doctrine really says. The post came from us recognizing that we had a great deal of misinformation fed to us over the years about what the Trinity doctrine actually is. So we tried to clear it up a little. Very basic stuff.

We thought we would compare and contrast views. To represent the Armstrong view we figured what could possibly be a better comparison than the "Is God A Trinity?" booklet. This was the premier booklet on the subject. Everyone was referred to it back in those days. Much of the current COG material comes from it. But as we read through it again, something really stuck out at us that none of us had ever noticed before. The COGs were polytheistic, and they admitted as much!
"The ancient idea of monotheism was shattered by the sudden appearance of Jesus Christ on the earth. Here was someone who claimed He was the Son of God. But how could He be? The Jewish people believed for centuries that there was only one God. If the claims of "this Jesus" were accepted, then in their minds their belief would be no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole system of monotheism would disintegrate. 
When Jesus plainly told certain Jews of His day that He was the Son of God, some were ready to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). To get around the problem of a plurality in the God head, the Jewish community simply rejected Jesus."
-George L. Johnson, "Is God A Trinity?", 1973, p.15 
If monotheism disintegrates we are left with what? That's right. Polytheism.

But who is George L. Johnson? It's not like Herbert W Armstrong came out and said this kind of thing, right?
"Only ONE God - More Than One Person!"
"One Family. God IS a Family. That Family is ONE GOD."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p.62
I just want to point out that Armstrong is trying to have it both ways here. But he just can't quite seem to make a plural singular. That polytheism shines right through.
"Likewise, there is but ONE God - but GOD is the family name, and there is more than one person in the ONE Family."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Incredible Human Potential", 1978, p.64
Oh yes. Herbert Armstrong did come out and say this kind of thing. When he says "person" he is not using accepted theological language. He really does mean there are two Gods - two minds and two substances and two beings - in one family. Even when he says there is "but ONE God", he still says there is more than one God, because "ONE God" is in reference to the family not the beings. This is doublespeak. The Father and the Son are no more one God in his view than you are one human with your parents.

Notice that these quotes aren't from the "Is God A Trinity" booklet. No, they are from THE book - "The Incredible Human Potential." This book was Armstrongism's magnum opus. It was said to be the last book of the Bible. If Herbert Armstrong will talk polytheism here, then absolutely nowhere can be more official.

Herbert Armstrong once was required to describe himself under oath in court. Here is what he said about himself:
"I am the founder, Pastor General, and spiritual and temporal leader of defendant Worldwide Church of God, Inc. (" Worldwide") . In addition, I am chief executive officer, chairman of the board of directors and chairman of the board of trustees ... I am the appointed Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and, as such, have been both the spiritual and temporal leader of the Church from its inception."-Herbert Armstrong, Pastor's Report, pp. 28-29, Jan. 8, 1979
The prime leader in the prime material. Cannot be topped. If this guy, the founder, Pastor General, appointed Apostle, Chairman and CEO, and spiritual and temporal leader of the Church of God on earth says the COGs have more than one God being, within the pages of his most important publications, with one of them being the last book of the Bible, then the COGs have more than one God.

Polytheism confirmed. Yes, it's so.


While Armstrongism is quite comfortable with its polytheistic view of God, there are issues with Semi-Arianism. To be completely forthcoming, there are issues with every attempt mankind has ever made to explain God. All views have issues, even monotheism, because God is far beyond our understanding. But let's explore a few problems with Armstrongism's Semi-Arianist doctrine.

>>It's polytheistic.

This is the main topic of this post. Polytheism is a dirty word in the COGs. It's too pagan. The obvious link with paganism is precisely why the author of "Origin of Easter" article was using the word. He wanted to cast aspersions. But mote meet beam!

>>The Son cannot fully know the Father.

Because they are two separate beings, and the Son is lesser than the Father (to a great degree), the Jesus of Armstrongism cannot truly, fully know the Father. The Son may know the Father a lot better than anyone else besides the Father, but He cannot fully know the Father. The Son would be on a journey of discovery just like everyone else. This would also make Him less than omniscient. If we say the Son is omniscient and omnipotent, then we must abandon the idea of Him being less than the Father.

>>Jesus had an end.

We just pointed out that Jesus is without beginning or end. But that is wrong too. Armstrongism teaches soul sleep. In the Armstrongist view, Jesus had an end. God the Son completely emptied Himself of Godhood. Therefore, the God was gone. Then there was a three day period where even Jesus did not exist except for a dead corpse and a memory in the Father's mind. So He cannot be without end in the Armstrongist system.

>>God the Father and Son are still a closed system.

One of the main objections that Armstrongists have voiced over the years against the Trinity is that it makes God a closed system. "How can God add to His family if He is a Trinity? You can't add to a Trinity." But I want to point out that Armstrongism does not teach that mankind will become the Father or the Son. They aren't adding to the Father or the Son either. So this point is moot.

Bear in mind that Trinitarianism does not in any way exclude being part of God's family. The Orthodox church has had this idea for several hundred years. The word for this is Theosis. Even though the Catholic church doesn't make such a prominent case about Theosis, they too believe we all have an opportunity to "partake in the Divine nature."
My point is, the Semi-Arian view isn't really coming to the rescue here. In all reality it's just fighting a straw man.

>>Many Holy Spirits.

In all my years as a member of the COGs, I never gave a second's thought to the fact that if the Father and Son are separate then by necessity there had to be more than one Holy Spirit. In Armstrongism, the Holy Spirit is a force, a power, without a mind of its own. The Holy Spirit is not itself a God, but it is what God is made of. We as humans aren't told how God works, probably because we couldn't grasp it anyway, but if the Holy Spirit is what the Father and the Son are made of then this demands there must be multiple Holy Spirits. This is a real issue because throughout the Bible the Holy Spirit is singular.

>>Monophysite Holy Spirit??

Remember how Armstrongism teaches Monophysitism - where Jesus completely emptied Himself of Godhood and became 100% man, and has only one nature of either God or man but not both at the same time? OK. So, when the Son completely divested Himself of divinity and became 100% the man Jesus, what did He do with the Holy Spirit? Did He put it in a box and save it for later? Was it destroyed? Was it absorbed into the Father? If the Son's mind left His substance, did the Holy Spirit die?

I am not going to go into any more issues today because we already have an article on the biggest issue, "Jesus' Death Under Trinitarianism." I think we've brought up enough issues for now. I only wanted to point out that there are issues - real issues - and the puzzle is not neatly arranged in the COG doctrine with all answers found and all loose ends tied. Many people join Armstrongism because they are looking for some answer or the other, but they just don't like the answers in mainstream Christianity as they understand them. Armstrongism claims to have an answer for most everything. But as always, when we truly dig, we find that things just do not work as well as advertised. A spray-on theology just doesn't cover that unsightly bald spot.

I know a lot of people are opposed to the Trinity because it doesn't make sense to them. It's fine that things don't always make sense. God invites us to investigate but He didn't hand us the answer in a tidy box, so not making sense is going to be part of this. But I don't see how Semi-Arianism makes any more sense once we start critically investigating it. I suspect that not making sense is more of an excuse to avoid the issue. It was for me! Mea culpa!


Polytheism. Just like the pagan Babylonians, you have it.

All we are doing in this article is pointing out what has been forgotten. Really, we are asking the same question George Johnson asked:
"Is God one, or are there two separate Gods and is Christianity, therefore, polytheistic?"-George L. Johnson, "Is God A Trinity?", 1973, p.41  
In the COG's Semi-Arian view of God the answer is polytheistic. As Johnson said, "no different from that of the polytheistic pagans around them."

Perhaps someone will say they believe in only one God Family, therefore they are monotheistic.
No. It doesn't work that way. There is no way around this. Armstrongism is inescapably polytheistic.

I am going to assume that many of our readers are still questioning and could use a little more assistance. I would like to recommend to you Martha's article "Rainbows and Earthworms, Or Making Sense of God's Nature." God doesn't always make sense. We don't need to force Him to.

If for any reason you are a member at a Church of God splinter group and you do not agree that you are a polytheist, then we would be glad to welcome you into mainstream Christianity ...because you aren't an Armstrongist anymore at this point anyway.

But if you are comfortable with being just like the pagans and don't mind polytheism, please tell the COGWA leadership that they ought to stop talking down to polytheists.

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11

Sunday, April 1, 2018

Review Of COGWA Origin of Easter

Today we are going to do another article review. Few things are so reassuring and entertaining to write than an article review.

I just happened to stumble across an article from the Church of God a Worldwide Association (COGWA). The article is "Origin of Easter" by John Foster. From the Life, Hope, and Truth website of the COGWA. Accessed 3/31/2018. This seems to be something that their other articles link to, so I figured I would take a look. What I found troubled me.

The article is the standard claim about Easter being pagan. The problem with such a claim - a claim that history played out in a certain way - is that one needs evidence from history. Other COGWA articles point to this one as their proof, so we know that this article is going to really be something. We are really going to pull out all the stops.
Or not. One theme that runs throughout the article is a series of the worst possible source material I've come across yet. It gets progressively worse and worse as it goes along. Keep an eye out for this.

One would think that if we want to prove history, we would go to the oldest, most reliable sources. The author doesn't do that. The author pulls from one scholarly source. The rest are just websites that seem to be chosen because they say what the author wants to hear. But how is that researching? How is that investigating? Would you buy medicine by going into dark alleys and handing money to whomever happens to tell you it works? If you wouldn't treat your physical health that way, why would you treat your spiritual health that way?

Before I say another word I want to point out that today's review is about a publication, not a person. This review deals with ideas, not the author. The author is a beloved child of God. It's the author's claims that I have an issue with. That said, let's just get on with it, shall we?

It begins thus:
Where did Easter and its customs come from? The Bible doesn’t mention rabbits or eggs or sunrise services. So what is the origin of Easter?
A standard claim, all in all. But a claim of truth; historical truth. There should be some historical evidence to go with that claim. There is. But first, a doctrinal statement. The Armstrongist tradition teaches that if the Bible doesn't specifically say it, then it's not to be done. The Bible doesn't say Easter so it's not not something to be done.

That is the standard the author sets. So, I must ask - does Armstrongism meet its own standard? No. Let's observe.

The Bible doesn’t mention a separate Night to be Much Observed from Passover. Passover is the night. They aren't separate. They are the same. But Armstrongism treats it as separate. Go ahead and ask yourself, how does the Bible specify the rules for observing the Night to be Much Observed? It doesn't. Most Armstrongists will just say, "We have to do something." Ah! But that's exactly the point. If the Bible doesn't say it then you're not supposed to do it. That's the standard.

Exodus 12 is all about Passover. To somehow separate a night before Passover is to invent an entirely made up observance. The COGs can't even decide on the name. It used to be called Night to be Much Remembered. Read Exodus 12: 42 in the New King James. It reads, "night of solemn observance." There is no proper noun in there. Passover is the night of solemn observance. Not the night before Passover. What happened on the night before the Angel of Death came through Egypt? Nothing much.

The Bible doesn’t mention the Last Great Day apart from Tabernacles either. The Last Great Day is now being called The Eighth Day because the COGs are starting to wake up to the fact that they invented a holy day. That makes two made up holidays. So when I say Armstrongism doesn't meet its own standard, I wasn't just taking that from a website that says what I want to hear.

The Bible never mentions Tabernacles in a hotel. Doesn’t mention Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, or Tabernacles being observed outside of Jerusalem. It never mentions a removal of the law that bans Gentiles from observing Passover.

I could have listed more but didn't see the need. So if one is going to hold up "it's not in the Bible" as litmus test, then mote meet beam.

Now let's look at what the Bible does say. 

The Old Covenant never condemns adding holidays. It just condemns joining into pagan ones. Don't believe me? Ask the Jews. Or, read our article "Established and Imposed" and learn about Hanukkah and Purim. Martha goes over it again in "What the Days of Unleavened Bread Don't Tell You." It's allright there in (EST. 9: 18-32) and (JON. 10: 22-28). Made up by the Jews, not condemned. 

Condemning holidays which commemorate something God did is not in the Bible.

Keep this in mind the next time you hear that the Bible never tells us to honor the resurrection of Christ ...which is the absolute proof that Jesus is the long awaited Messiah and the greatest miracle in the history of mankind. The New Testament never directly tells us to honor any day. It also never tells us not to.

Back to the article.
Since Easter is one of the most renowned holidays in the Christian world, why should we be concerned about the origin of Easter?
For centuries, questions have arisen as to the relationship between bunnies and painted eggs and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The truth of the matter is that Easter has its roots in ancient paganism and polytheism.
We should be concerned about the origins of Easter. We really should! But we should be equally concerned about where we get our information. A lie that we like to hear is still a lie. If Easter is a lie, it shouldn't take lies to prove it.

What does genuine history show us? The roots of Easter are not in ancient paganism.
If it was, there would be some ancient document providing the evidence. If John Foster, or any of the multitude of other COG authors before and since had any hard evidence, we would see it. There is none.

Let me plainly tell you what they are doing - redirection.
They are taking the annual observance of Jesus' resurrection, which from the start has been called Pascha or something similar to Pascha, and trying to distract you with the Germanic name of the day. You see, only in Germanic languages is the observance not called Pascha or similar. English is a Germanic language. In German, the day is Oster; in English, the day is Easter. If they can distract you with the German, then they can paint the entire observance as pagan, because the name Easter is so unusual.
It's distraction. It's redirection. And they are hoping you don't catch on!

The oft repeated claim is that the name of Easter is from Eostre and that's the damnable proof. You will see the author make this claim soon. But I want to make you aware ahead of time -- that's not what the historical evidence actually says. Do you want to know what the evidence actually says? I'll tell you.

There was a man named Bede. He was an English monk in the early 700's. He wrote a book about calendars and the passing of time as part of his greater interest in the history of the English. In this book, he mentions that Easter takes its name from the month Eosturmonath, in which the Easter season began. That's what the document says. Not that the name Easter comes from a pagan goddess, not that it came from ancient Babylon, but that it comes from a month. 

People who say that Easter comes from the name of a goddess haven't even bothered themselves to read the history.

Bede does a little speculating that the month took its name from a goddess. He invented the goddess Eostre. Because Eosturmonath. The problem is that no other evidence exists for this Eostre. None. None at all. There is plenty of evidence for other gods and goddesses, but not this one.

Now for another twist!

In the 1800's along comes Jacob Grimm (of Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales). He takes Bede's Eostre, admits there isn't anything like that in any other document, and speculates that in German the name probably was more like Ostara. Because in German the month was Ostarmonath rather than Eosturmonath. He did the exact same thing that Bede did. He invents a goddess. Only in German.

Same problem here. There is no Ostara. There is no evidence for Ostara. None. Grimm invented the goddess Ostara. Because Ostarmonath.
We have other articles that will explain to you quite a bit more about these names and where Ostar and Eostar really come from.

Many people have claimed that Eostra and Ostara come from Ishtar and Astarte. That's a baseless lie. They couldn't come from Ishtar because neither of them ever existed. That, my dear reader, is what you call "false etymology". People make this claim based on nothing else than the names sound similar. But they aren't similar.

Ishtar was an ancient Mesopotamian goddess. Akkadian and German are not related languages at all. Babylonian was a Semitic language. German is an Indo-European language. They are completely separate, unrelated languages. The very notion of German inheriting words from Babylon is ridiculous. Don't just take my word for it. Look it up yourself! Look up any language tree and see how German and Semitic have nothing to do with each other.

The reason I point this out is to emphasize the layers of uneducated claims that have to be invented just to get to the starting point of Easter is pagan. All of these pagan claims based on the name Easter are made up.

“Truth of the matter” he says. Would we not expect the truth to actually be, you know, demonstrably true? And if it is not true, then what is it? It is not truth of the matter, that's for sure!

Hey! Wait a minute! I almost missed this. The last word in my quote Does John Foster  is "polytheism". Does he use the word "polytheism" here in a derogatory manner? Yes. Yes he did. And he'll do it again later. 
Doesn't he know that Armstrongism is polytheistic?? 

In our article "Primer to the Trinity Doctrine" we discuss this with quotes from the Worldwide Church of God premier booklet "Is God A Trinity?" I don't say "premier booklet" lightly. This was one of the WCG's top of the top booklets. Let me give you just one quote here, for convenience' sake:
"If the claims of 'this Jesus' were accepted, then in their [the Jews] minds their belief would be no different than that of the polytheistic pagans around them. If He were the Son of God, their whole system of monotheism would disintegrate."
-George L. Johnson, "Is God A Trinity?", 1973, p.15 [underline mine]
If monotheism disintegrates then you are left with what? That's right. Polytheism. How can you be a polytheist and talk down about polytheists?
The origin of Easter
According to William E. Vine, “The term 'Easter' is not of Christian origin. It is another form of Astarte, one of the titles of the Chaldean goddess, the queen of heaven. The festival of Pasch [Passover] held by Christians in post-apostolic times was a continuation of the Jewish feast. … From this Pasch the pagan festival of ‘Easter’ was quite distinct and was introduced into the apostate Western religion, as part of the attempt to adapt pagan festivals to Christianity” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1997, “Easter”).
John Foster accurately quotes Vine’s Expository. I commend that much at least. This is his one and only scholarly source. He's attempting to prove the origins of Easter, and this is his one and only scholarly source.

I prepped you ahead of time so that you would be ready when we got here. Before I proceed, I want to remind you that concentrating on the word Easter is all a distraction. The original name of the festival was Pascha, not Easter.

The Expository is not wholly unreliable, but I take issue with this claim that there was a pagan festival of 'Easter.' Vine has no more evidence for this claim than I gave you earlier. No evidence at all. We also take issue that Easter comes from Astarte. The languages are unrelated. The etymology of the English word Easter does not come from the Mesopotamian word Astarte.
These sorts of claims were popular before 1950, but have since been proven false. Vine clearly pulls from 19th century German Protestant scholars whose ideas have been abandoned. 

We are all human and we do the best we have with what we are given. Originally written by William E. Vine, (1873-1947) in 1940, the Expository relies on what it had at the time. But in nearly a century we’ve learned quite a few things that make this particular section obsolete. Sadly, it's too late for Vine to do anything about it.
But it's not too late for John Foster to do something! One wonders why he hasn't.

In our article “A Pattern of Dishonest Documentation” we showed how the COGs prefer to cite outdated source material from the turn of the 20th century. For example they love to cite the Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition. And why is that? Because there is an article in that specific edition which makes a claim they prefer to hear. That encyclopedia is over 100 years old. Are there no other sources available? Of course there are. The problem is the new scholarly sources don’t tend to say what the COGs want to hear. So they are forced to keep going back to this one. They will only quote those sources that say what they want to hear. Hence why the LCG quotes The Golden Bough by James Frazier, who believed Jesus never existed, because it says a couple things they want to hear. We go into detail on this in our article “The Quotes Before Christmas.”

Before anyone gets after me about disagreeing with Vine’s, I just want to point out that this isn’t my selection, I’m just rebutting, and Vine’s in many places doesn’t agree with John Foster either. Vine was a Trinitarian after all and if you look up the word Spirit you’re going to see starkly clear Trinitarian verbiage there. I disagree with Vine's in one place and the COGWA disagrees with him in another place. So, it’s not as if either side of today's debate really hold Vine’s Expository as being infallible. We at ABD disagree with what we can demonstrate is incorrect. The COGWA disagree with whatever they don't quite like.
Another source states: “The history of Easter reveals ancient pagan roots; this holiday was not always a Christian-based holiday. It is believed that the term Easter is literally derived from the term Eostre, the name of a Teutonic feminine deity. The latter goddess is a fertility goddess, a goddess of the spring, and the hare is sacred to her. … “The association of Easter practices with the pagan goddess Eostre makes clear some of the traditions that are carried out today. The goddess Eostre was honored toward the end of the month of March, right around the time of Spring Equinox” (
This quote has a source cited. Way to go! But the link is dead. We didn’t let that stop us. We searched until we found it. And it’s a Sapercom site. What is Sapercom, you say? Here is how they describe themselves:

We believe that small websites which focus on relevant information about a single topic is helpful to people who don't want to spend a lot of time searching for that information. So, our websites are focused on a single topic. See, it's simple. We focus on content that is relevant to the topic of the website. Even the domain names of our websites reflect the specific focus of each website.

So, was not a history site, it was a site about history. Not necessarily by historians, but by anyone. Not necessarily historiographical, but just topically relevant. Not necessarily scholarly at all, just convenient. I would take info from that site only with an extreme caution.

So I checked the selection and I want to assure you that this quote is ... partially correct!

What? That surprises you? No, it’s true! The word Easter is English of German origin (English is a Germanic language) and Ostermonath gets its name from the something pre-Christian. So the quote is partially correct.

But, as we mentioned earlier, there are several things wrong here. 
  • If it's of German origin, then it can't be of Babylonian origin. They are unrelated.
  • Eostre wasn't German, it was English. Ostar was the German word.
  • There was no goddess Eostre or Ostara.
The rest of the quote is bunk. There is no record of Eostre, so there is no record of when Eostre was honored or how or by whom. Just because the name of Easter comes from a German month doesn't mean the day of Easter is pagan. It just means the Germans gave it a new name. What was Easter called before Christians came to Germany? The holiday was called Pascha. Even Bede called it the "Paschal Month." And the record of Pascha goes back to the cross. It wasn't called anything at all like Easter until the German Christians changed the name of Pascha. They changed it because that's how German's were. They named holidays after the month(s) in which they fell. It was a natural thing to do.

Armstrongists just hope you don't catch on to their what they're doing.
Another source describes a possible ancient link to Good Friday: “In ancient Roman history, the 24th of March (VIII Kal Apriles) was the Dies sanguinis ‘day of blood,’ possibly a precursor of Good Friday. On the 22 of March, the arbor intrat, a procession of palms or a pine tree was brought to the shrine of Cybele. Two days later, at the Day of the Blood, the priests of Cybele slashed themselves and spun around to sprinkle her statue with blood” (
Another dead link. Beginning to get frustrating. This isn’t the article’s fault, it’s the Internet’s fault. Links in old articles sometimes go away. Happens here, too. So I dug and found the site anyway. And oh, shame on this quote! This is clear and unambiguous Confirmation Bias on display here. I will direct you to our reliable friend and historian Roger Pearse, who has an entire article on this very quote: “Dies Sanguinis – what do we know about this?" The historical record annihilates John Foster's quote.

I want to point out two things:
First, Roger Pearse wrote this article in 2011. For several years, this information has been available to the COGs.
Second, Roger finds no support in history for the claim that Good Friday came from any pagan source. No support! None. Why are claims being made about so many things with zero evidence? 

Notice that Roger Pearse pulls his information from ancient primary source documents. He went to the source. The oldest, most reliable information available. The truth about Deis Sanguinis was actually available to us all for thousands of years. But there COGWA is, ignoring it to this very day.
Contrast that with Mr. Foster's article. There are no primary source references in there. Not a one. Nor either can there be, because the historical record proves the COGs wrong.

Life, Hope, and what?
The following is from another source: “Rabbits, of course, are a potent symbol of fertility due to their prodigious output of young. Eggs, likewise, have always been considered representative of new life, fertility, and reincarnation. Painted eggs, thought to imitate the bright sunlight and gaily colored flowers of spring, have been used in rituals since the days of the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. …“The pagan celebrations most associated with modern Christian practices derive from Mediterranean cultures. The Phrygians celebrated a spring festival honoring Cybele, a fertility goddess. Cybele had a consort god named Attis, who was born of a virgin, and who died and was resurrected after three days, an occurrence commemorated sometime around the vernal equinox. Worshippers of Attis mourned the god’s death on Black Friday, then celebrated his rebirth on the following Sunday.“Attis was simply the latest manifestation of earlier resurrection myths like those of Osiris, Orpheus, Tammuz and Dionysus, who were likewise said to have been born of virgins and resurrected three days after their deaths. In areas where Christian beliefs later took hold, these already existing tales were grafted onto the story of Jesus Christ, and continue to be retold to this day.”
This is a standard quote, unfortunately. I want to get your attention here and point something out.

I am so glad Mr. Foster put this information here. I believe it's the strongest evidence against his claim. How so? Because - not only is most of this selection inexcusably false, it betrays the lack of solid evidence. If there really was an Eostre, he wouldn't be attempting to shotgun information about Cybele.

What he's trying to do here is throw whatever he can at the wall in hopes something sticks. That's not a sign of confidence.

Two years before Origin of Easter was written, we already had articles on all of this. History of Easter Part I and Part II. See for yourself.

And where did he get this stuff in the first place? There's that "another source" phrase again. (I would love to see what his bibliography looked like.) Who is this unnamed expert and why does this article keep citing unnamed sources?
What terrible luck. Yet another dead link. Back to digging. But persistence has paid off once more. The link points to That was a forum website where anyone could contribute. The quote could have been from anyone …anyone at all. Ah! But you are here at AsBereansDid, dear reader. We don’t settle for that. We dig! And what did we find? The author’s name is most likely Jenny Ashford.

Who is Jenny Ashford? Probably a nice enough person. Creative. Maybe even educated. We wouldn't know. We don’t know her. But she describes herself as “a writer and graphic artist from central Florida.” I would't mind doing that myself.

Except we're talking about history here and she's not a historian or a specialist (she never claimed to be). By this point I no longer think it odd that John Foster cites as an authority someone who isn't really an authority. He isn't quoting her because she wrote a thesis; he's quoting her because she says what he wants to hear.

What else can we find about her? She has a website! What is that like?

. . . .
. . . . . . . o_O

Is the COGWA aware of this?

I can see why he kept her a secret. Moving on.
There are hundreds of other websites that discuss the pagan origin of Easter.
No doubt there are several hundreds of other websites out there that will affirm the author's position. Goodness knows I've been to my share of them. But it doesn't matter how many websites there are out there. Do you have any idea how many Muslim websites there are out there and they all say Jesus isn't God. So, is it true that Jesus isn't God because there are hundreds of Muslim websites? No.

This is not only an illogical appeal to popularity, but it's a horrid, awful way to do "research." No, scratch that. I will come right out and say it's not research at all! It's Confirmation Bias, plain and simple. It's irresponsible. They have every opportunity that I have to get the right information, but they refuse! To the point where they actually hide who the sources are.

Life, Hope, and what was that again?
Should Christians celebrate Easter?
So, what is a Christian to do with the knowledge of the pagan origin of Easter?
Throw it out! It's garbage knowledge. What do you do with the knowledge that the moon is made of cheese? Certainly do not base your faith and doctrines on it!
According to the Bible, God does not want His people to follow or seek after pagan customs.When ancient Israel entered the Promised Land, God warned them not to seek after the teachings and traditions of the nations that once inhabited the land. He said, “Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.’ You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:30-32).Later, Christ told His disciples: “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7:6-8).Therefore, anything that has pagan origins must be avoided by Christ’s disciples, no matter what the intent or long-standing tradition.
Let's stop right here. What has the author done? He's scoured the very bottom of the Internet to get the most useless, outdated, and unreliable third-hand support for his claims against Easter - claims that were already set in stone before he even joined the team to write the article in the first place - and with that terribly irresponsible source material propping up his pre-conclusion, he has joined the fray to label Easter as pagan. So now, with Easter seemingly pagan, he pulls out some comfortable and familiar Bible verses against paganism.

What's the big deal with this? He has still not proven his main point! He has yet to demonstrate the origins of Easter! He's just begging the question is all. To start quoting verses now is just more and more of the same.
What the Bible tells us to celebrate
It is also important to note that the Bible nowhere tells us to honor the day of Christ’s resurrection. Instead, God established a command that the Passover should be observed annually to honor Christ’s death. Today, Christians are not to participate in the Easter holiday, but rather in the New Testament Passover, which is the memorial of Jesus Christ’s sacrifice for our sins.
It is even more important to note that the Bible nowhere tells Gentiles to honor Old Covenant holy days. (Remember the standard from earlier - if the Bible doesn't tell you to do it then you shouldn't do it.) I know! I know. That's too big a bite for you to chew on right there. But give me just a minute here and I'll show you why I say this. First, I want the author to have a chance to speak.
In great solemnity, once a year on the 14th day of the first month on the Hebrew calendar (Leviticus 23:4-5), we are to observe the Lord’s Passover.
The COGs say don't keep Easter, keep the Old Covenant Passover. Because the law! But is that so? Not according to the law. According to the law, anyone who is not a member of the nation of Israel is forbidden from participating in Passover.

(EXO. 12: 43, 45, 48-49) 43 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “This is the ordinance of the Passover: No foreigner shall eat it.
45 A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat it.
48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it. 49 One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you.

So, for all of this talk about God gave us holy days the reality is quite different. No, God gave the Jews holy days. He indeed forbade them from us, except if we literally join the physical nation of Israel. That is the law. Believe your Bible. I didn't put those verses in there.

Knowing that the Gentiles were forbidden from participating in the law, and claiming that the law will never change, Armstrongism has gotten itself into a hole. How can they get themselves attached to the law that forbids them? Thus they invent things like British Israelism, and they claim that we are all Spiritual Israel now the law that prohibited us is bound on us. But this point was flatly rejected in Acts 15. The Holy Spirit declared that we do not need to be Jews to be Christians.
On that special evening, the apostle Paul instructed the members of the Church to partake of the bread, which symbolizes Christ’s body broken (beaten) for us, and to drink of the wine, which symbolizes the New Covenant in His blood (1 Corinthians 11:23-29).
Does Paul instruct anyone to observe the Passover in this selection? Let's look. In verses 23-25, Paul re-tells the story of the night Jesus ate the Last Supper with the Apostles. In verses 27-29, Paul tells us to take special care to treat the bread and wine with the respect it deserves. So far, no instruction to observe Passover. If you notice, I skipped verse 26:

(I COR. 11: 26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.

As often.

If in this selection there was any hope of Paul teaching Passover, it would be this verse. Yet there is no command to observe the Passover. In fact, the word Passover isn't in this chapter at all. To take that even farther, the word Passover isn't in either First or Second Corinthians, except in one verse - I COR. 5: 7, where it says "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us." And that's it.

How do we get Paul instructing everyone to observe the Old Covenant Passover from this selection? We cannot. Ask them to demonstrate why they think Paul is instructing Christians to observe Passover and they'll go to the Old Testament. The COGs believe Paul is instructing Christians to observe Passover because Moses gave Passover to the Jews. But that's not getting Passover from Corinthians, that's getting Passover from Exodus.

I'm not going to belabor this point. I'll direct you to our article "Must Christians Observe the Old Covenant Passover" for more details.

And that's exactly why "Origin of Easter" is a textbook example of a COG article. It is straight down the line in every way a prime example of how the COGs treat truth. They go into things assuming they are right to begin with, then they run roughshod over the facts from there.
As to Christ’s resurrection, this occurred exactly three days and three nights after His burial (Matthew 12:39-40; Luke 24:46-47). Christ was crucified on a Wednesday afternoon, buried just before sunset, as Thursday was an annual holy day. He was resurrected three days later on Saturday afternoon (the weekly Sabbath) just before sunset. It must also be noted that on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene had come to the tomb while it was still dark. Christ had already risen—long before sunrise (John 20:1-2).
Amazing. Almost everything in that paragraph is wrong. How many Easter articles do we have to address this? Many! I'll give you just three:

Three Days and Three Nights
Two Sabbaths of Matthew 28
Wednesday Crucifixion? Not Likely.

If you can't find a good answer in there, then write to us.
So, the story of Christ’s resurrection occurring on Easter Sunday morning (as well as rabbits laying eggs) is a polytheistic myth. Instead of observing Easter or any of its customs, Christians are instructed to observe the biblically authorized holy days of God.You can learn more in the section “Holy Days vs. Holidays.”
Tsk tsk. If you live in a polytheistic home, better not throw polytheistic stones.
The polytheistic myth is that there was ever a pagan Easter.


So, we have reached the end of the article.

Did you pay attention to the source material? Was it not as I said? Did you notice the decreasing quality of the sources? They scraped the bottom of the Internet. The pattern of dishonest documentation continues. Some of the claims in this article are so false that it's almost a comfort for me to know that he got it all from someone else. It's as if John Foster is challenging us to choose who we are we going to believe, the woman with the human heart in her hands or our lyin' eyes?

We were promised the origins of Easter, but we didn't see any actual historical documentation whatsoever. Nothing ancient. Nothing older then the 1940s. This was their big chance to make their case but there was nothing. No gotcha! No show stopper. He had this one chance and he did nothing with it. In fact, it was so empty that he shot himself in the foot by blaming it all on Cybele. This was COGWA's best attempt!

It's not as if the article even tried to prove anything. It started by assuming the idea was correct to begin with. There was no reason for the author to challenge himself. Or, perhaps the author did challenge himself but was too afraid of what he found, so this was the more convenient approach.

We were told that the Old Covenant Passover is the proper holiday for us all. But Armstrongism never explains how that can be. Supposedly God gave this holiday to us by forbidding us to participate unless we become Jews. So when did He give it to us? In the New Covenant? Where, precisely, I Corinthians 5? What happened to the law being unchanged? But if it changes not then the Gentiles are still left out. It can't be both changed and unchanged.

But think about this. If there is any symbol in the Bible that pointed to Jesus, it is the Passover symbol. If there is any shadow that was fulfilled by His substance, it's this shadow. All of that pointed to Him and what He would do. All of it. The greatest miracle, the greatest triumph, the very pinnacle of God's strategy is Jesus' death and resurrection. Without the resurrection, the death is no more hopeful than any other death. Each of us will accomplish that much. But with the resurrection it becomes unspeakably great. It is with the resurrection that our tears of  sadness become tears of joy. God died for us, and we will live with Him. How do we know He is who He said He is, because the tomb is empty and no human had a thing to do with it. Now we know He is who He said He is, and we know He will do what He said He will do for us. All season long it's, "Three days and three nights! 72 hours!" Well, 72 hours to what? To the resurrection! But in this article it's "Pay no attention to that resurrection. Have a matzo!" It's precisely as Martha said, none of this is in the Days of Unleavened Bread. It makes no sense whatsoever that Jesus would greatly desire the Gentiles to observe the shadow but ignore the fulfillment, the very point of the shadow in the first place.

You know, I am beginning to wonder if today's blog post is even about Easter or is it really about the way the articles that the COGs rely on are really baseless tangents constructed on assumptions.

In the end, I don't see anything in this Origin of Easter article that is any different than all of the articles that came before it. I honestly would have expected that if these claims were genuine, someone would have produced solid evidence for them by now. They've had multiple people working on it for 80 years.

Some of you may remember back when Herbert Armstrong would say, "Don't believe me, believe your Bibles!" What does the Bible say about bearing false witness? What does it say about being upright and above reproach? All members of the COGs, especially the COGWA, don't you realize that the quality of the source material in your publications reflects on each and every one of you? Demand better!

It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11