DWC on Garner Ted Armstrong's Death
The 'Plain Truth' About Herbert W. Armstrong's Healing Doctrine
Ambassador Watch and Darrell W. Conder
Darrell Conder's Response to Vance Stinson's Sermon
Vance Stinson's 1997 Letter to Darrell W. Conder
[Editor's note: We have received a number of e-mails in the past two days asking about our reaction to Garner Ted Armstrong's death on 15 September. What follows is a response from Darrell W. Conder.]
During my years in Pasadena, I met Ted Armstrong on numerous occasions, had several lengthy conversations with him, and sat through countless hours of his sermons and bible studies. It is an understatement to say that Garner Ted Armstrong was a gifted speaker. The man was a genius at his craft, which ties into my observation about his life and death.
I find it unbelievable that anyone with Ted Armstrong's knowledge of the bible could have been unaware of the massive contradictions and frauds found in the book. In saying this, I will recall that Ted's former friend, Dr. David Albert, who was a bible instructor at Ted's own Ambassador College, and who ultimately took over Ted's spot on the World Tomorrow television program, trained potential WCG ministers on tactics to coverup what the church termed "difficult scriptures." (Albert later abandoned Armstrongism and wrote a book titled, Difficult Scriptures, which essentially admitted the ministry's base dishonesty when preaching Armstrongism.)
What were these "difficult scriptures"? They are scriptures that directly contradict the basic doctrines of Armstrongism, on which the WCG leadership didn't want its sheep to focus. This fact in itself tells the "plain truth" about Garner Ted Armstrong, his father, the WCG and Ambassador College, and hence my belief that Ted Armstrong well knew the truth about the bible.
Moreover, the details of Garner Ted Armstrong's sordid life are like a flashing neon sign advertizing the fact that, to him, religion was nothing more than a means to earn a very comfortable life, and to find a smorgasbord of sexual gratification via his father's religious empire. (See David Robinson's book, Armstrong's Tangled Web, 1980, John Hadden Publishers, Tulsa, Ok., for details, or watch (as I have) the video of Ted's masturbation session with a Texas masseuse a few hours after he had delivered a Sabbath sermon.)
As to the manner of GTA's death, I found it particularly disgusting that he spent his last days in an intensive care unit (ICU) in a Texas hospital—undoubtedly receiving massive doses of anti-biotics and the best medical care his sheep's tithe money could buy—when he and his father consigned countless thousands to suffer and, in many cases, to die without medical aid because of their knowingly-flawed theology. (See Mark Armstrong's e-mail to his father's church, giving details of his father's life-and-death struggle in a hospital intensive care unit.)
The other revealing part of this final drama is the message sent to Ted's church members asking them to fast and pray for his recovery: "We know all of you have been fervent in prayer during these past weeks, and many have privately fasted for Mr. Armstrong's condition. But the time has come that it is needed to call for a collective day of prayer and fasting. Time is of the utmost importance. We are asking that you read this information to your congregations tomorrow and ask if it be at all possible to begin the fast on Sunset at the close of the Sabbath for a 24 hour period. (Sat. Sept. 13, 2003) We also know and understand that this may not be possible in everyone's situation. Particularly those with their own health problems, or individuals who may be facing situations that may prohibit a fast. If you are not able to fast at this time we are simply asking that each person go to God as fervently and sincerely as possible, so that we as one voice, as His spiritual organism be heard. And that God will grant our petition for his healing."
With GTA soon to be laid in his grave, I ask where was God's promised healing—a promise that is the mainstay of Armstrongism? Where was Ted's faith in his own doctrines as he checked into a Texas ICU to be pumped full of antibiotics? If Ted was the leader of "God's true church", fulfilling a vital "end-time work" warning the world of impending doom and announcing the second coming of Jesus, what happened? Why did God abandon him—especially since Ted and the WCG once believed he would be one of the two witnesses foretold in the book of Revelation?
The real truth is that faith in the healing power of Jesus is a one-way ticket to sheol, and Garner Ted knew it—which is why he opted for a last-ditch live-saving effort in a Texas ICU. If only the multitude of dead WCG church members, who once had faith in this man and his destructive theology, had known what Ted knew when they faced their final illnesses! I say, "Good riddance to both Ted and Herbert Armstrong and may their damnable theology perish with them!"
Darrell W. Conder
For of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, "It might have been!"
—John Greenleaf Whittier
Recently, I was criticized by a reader for saying that Herbert Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God condemned medical science as a sin. Citing Armstrong's 1979 booklet, The Plain Truth About Healing he stated that what I had written was false. Well, the "plain truth" of the matter is that Armstrong's 1979 booklet was a reworked edition of his earlier healing articles and sermons, in which he taught that medical science was indeed a sin. (The need for this new edition was because Armstrong found himself increasingly embroiled in litigation over his healing doctrine, which routinely killed people! See the WCG's MINISTERIAL VISITING PROGRAM TRAINING CLASS Sixteenth Class April 27, 1969: HOW TO DEAL WITH HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROBLEMS, which is reproduced in this author's article, The Plain Truth About Healing.)
To answer those die-hard Armstrongites (pun intended), I will reproduce excerpts from Herbert's Does God Heal Today? so that they may judge whether or not I have written the "plain truth" in my article. I should also clarify Armstrong's doctrine regarding physical sin and spiritual sin. According to him, eating pork, shrimp, white flour, white sugar (when I was young, our local minister even added mayonnaise to the list), smoking and wearing makeup were considered physical sins, as was going to a doctor. Spiritual sin was confined to a violation of the big ten, which brought about eternal death in the lake of fire. All of this was mere rhetoric because in Armstrong's church there was really no distinction between the two, as we shall see in his article. All so-called physical sin was easily twisted into a spiritual sin and for this Armstrong wielded the two-edged sword of eternal death in the dreaded lake of fire. With this in mind, let's see what Herbert actually taught about doctors and medicine—keeping in mind that at the end of his life, this man, who had consigned countless thousands to suffer and/or die from easily curable illnesses, surrounded himself with the best medical care his faithful's tithe money could buy!
Excerpts from Herbert W. Armstrong's booklet, Does God Heal Today?
. . . You know, my friends, a doctor can't heal! And any honest doctor will admit it. None of his drugs, or medicines, or knives can heal. There is no healing in any of them. There is only one kind of healing, and that is healing directly by the Almighty God! There is no other healing! . . .Scripture Labels Other Modes of Healing IDOLATRY
Nothing else is healing in the strictest sense. God says, "I am the Eternal that heals you," and He isn't going to let anyone else heal you. He says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," -- no other healers, in other words. One of the NAMES of God is Jahveh-rapha (as used in Exodus 15:26) meaning "God Healer." Now turn over to the 23rd chapter of Exodus, and the 24th and 25th verses. God says, "Thou shall not bow down to their gods," (these Gentile gods) "nor serve them, nor do after their works: you shall serve the Eternal your God, and He shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee." That's what God said to Israel back in the days of Moses, long, long before the days of Christ. . . .
Do you know that for centuries, Israel's means of healing was faith in God alone? He alone was their physician. There were no doctors, no physicians in Israel. That is, not until those Israelites began to turn to the ways of the heathen nations around them.
Now at first God alone was their King too, but soon they began to notice how the heathen nations around them were doing, and they wanted a human man for their king, so God permitted it. He gave them Saul, later David and his dynasty, and of course later they did begin to turn to the heathen methods of doctoring and medicine. . . .
[Comment: Notice that Armstrong labels any kind of healing other than divine healing as idolatry, and, according to the bible, idolatry is a capital sin punishable by eternal death! So, doctors and medicine are deadly sins—Herbert Armstrong said so!]
Medicine Condemned as Idolatry
[Comment: In this subtitle, Armstrong once again equates medical science with capital sin! To back this statement, I'll add this quotation from Herbert's son and one-time second in command, Garner Ted Armstrong, which is taken from the church's Good News magazine (June, 1964, pages 4, 22): "To rely on any foods, supplements, medicines, drugs, knives, or even on fasting, for healing (and none of these can, ever have, or ever will heal!) is to break the commandment against idolatry!" Yes, this is the same Garner Ted Armstrong who ended his life in an intensive care unit of a Texas hospital attended by doctors and pumped full of drugs!]
Notice King Asa of Judah as an example. He turned to the king of Syria and paid him money to become an ally. You know God had said that He would fight their battles for them. They didn't need foreign allies. They should have depended upon God and whenever any of the Kings of Israel or Judah did, they won every time.But this King Asa of Judah, forsook God. He relied instead upon the King of Assyria. He sent him money and treasure to bribe him to become his ally. I don't think they called it lendlease in those days, but he depended upon a Gentile ally, instead of trusting in God to fight his battles.
Later Asa was diseased. Notice, II Chronicles 16:12 -- "And then Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: and yet in his disease he sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians. And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign."
The Pagan Origin of Medicine
The Gentile nations had many gods. They had their gods of medicine as well as their gods of war. They had medicine men or doctors. Their method was to go to these human doctors who would use their medicines and their drugs and then they would pray to the god of medicine, and, they believed, the god of medicine would cause these medicines to heal.
Now there, my friends, is where medical "Science" (falsely so called) came from. From the heathens. I want you to notice what God's Word says about it. This is pretty plain talk. I hope I'm not offending people, but I have to preach God's Truth. You know God says to "Cry aloud and spare not and tell my people their sins," and proclaim the Word of God faithfully and truthfully, and well, that's just what I have to do . . .
[Comment: Here Armstrong clearly says that medical science is pagan, which is an abhorrent label to Christians, and that faith in this science is a sin—a sin that he must denounce by crying aloud!]
Healing Is Forgiveness of Sin!Sin is the transgression of the law. Spiritual sin is the transgression of God's spiritual law, the law of LOVE summed up in the Ten Commandments. Those are spiritual principles. The penalty of that kind of sin is death; but it is the second death. It's appointed to all men once to die, whether you are a Christian, whether converted, or not. And after that the judgment. But the penalty is eternal death. It is the second death in the lake of fire. That is the penalty of sin . . .
But there are physical laws, too, that regulate your physical health. And if you break those laws, or if they are broken it is transgression of law, and it exacts a PENALTY. It might be an accident, or something you didn't do yourself at all—you might not have been guilty of any wrong and yet nature's laws have been violated, or you wouldn't be sick. It isn't natural to be sick. It's unnatural, and wrong. So sickness is only the penalty of physical transgression, and whenever one is sick, he is paying that penalty! The penalty of transgressing these physical laws that regulate the human body is PAIN, suffering, sometimes the first or physical death. It's a physical transgression, or sin—and there's a physical PENALTY for that sin.
Consequently, healing is nothing more or less than the FORGIVENESS OF SIN—the consequent removal from us of the PENALTY we have incurred—and no human doctor, no medicine, no drug, has ever been given power to forgive sin—whether spiritual or physical!
[Comment: Notice that Armstrong, after telling people that medical science is the capital sin of idolatry, and that he was sent to cry aloud to tell people about this sin, threatens his readers with eternal death in the lake of fire, which is the term Armstrong used for hell fire. Of course Armstrong offers people a way out of that punishment by advising his faithful to reject medical science.]
Is There No Need for Doctors?If God is the Healer—the only real Healer;—and if medical science came out of the ancient heathen practice of medicine-men supposed to be in the good graces of imaginary gods of medicine, is there, then, no need for doctors?
Yes, I'm quite sure there is. If all people UNDERSTOOD and practiced God's TRUTH, the function of the doctor would be a lot different than it is today. Actually, there isn't a cure in a car-load—or a train-load—of medicine! Most sickness and disease today is the result of faulty diet and wrong eating. The true function of the doctor should not be to usurp GOD'S prerogative as a HEALER, but to help you to observe nature's laws by prescribing correct diet, teaching you how better to live according to nature's laws. In other words, to PREVENT sickness, not heal after you are sick! Unfortunately, most doctors today are woefully unprepared properly to advise patients about diet. They studied MEDICINE, not FOODS! There are a few schools of "healing" coming along today somewhat along this line, who work more with nature's laws, and not with drugs and medicines—the naturopaths, osteopaths and chiropractors, etc. These may and may not be good, largely according to the school from which they came and the ability of the man himself.
There are other needed functions for certain types of doctors. Child-bearing, for instance, is not a sickness from which women need healing, but a natural thing ordained of God. It would seem but right that we should have obstetrical specialists, then, for specialized aid and care on such occasions.
If something breaks on my automobile—something that can be fixed back either by myself or a specialist in a garage, I do not just PRAY and DO NOTHING, and expect God to do for me what I can do for myself. If you break an arm, or other bone, it certainly is right to take it to a specialist and have him SET IT. He can't HEAL it, however—you should TRUST GOD to do that. So, you see, there are a number of functions which human doctors or physicians can rightly perform. But remember that healing is, after all, OUT OF THEIR LINE—only God can heal! Only God can forgive sin!
[Comment: Here we have it! According to Armstrong, a doctor was good only for setting a broken bone, or delivering a baby. He also allowed members to have a tooth extracted, to use a hearing aid and to wear glasses. The problem with Armstrong's reasoning is that a broken bone is a medical emergency as is a malfunctioning heart valve. Failing eyesight, loss of hearing or a diseased tooth is the same as failings in other parts of the human body. If Armstrong's theology was pure, he should have taught divine healing for broken bones, bad teeth and failing eyes and ears! Perhaps I wouldn't be nearly as critical of Herbert W. Armstrong had he practiced faith healing for his own medical needs, such as when he suffered a massive heart attack in his mid eighties, or at the end of his life. But that wasn't the case. I'll quote from Garner Ted Armstrong's book, The Origin and History of the Church of God, International (pp. 46-48):
"I visited him time and time again, sometimes staying for a week or so at a time, visiting him each day. He was taking about eighteen or twenty pharmaceuticals each day. Often, I would hold him up, help him with his glass and bent straw, as he laboriously swallowed down so many of this or that color pill the doctors had prescribed. His dresser top looked like a drug store. . . . His home became like a hospital, in fact. Two doctors came daily, one for his heart condition, the other a liver specialist. He was on oxygen, and under the care of three nurses, with 'round-the-clock nursing care."
The pain and suffering brought by the hypocrite Armstrong and his "healing" doctrine is a tragedy of epic proportion. My hope is that the reader will wake up to the real "plain truth" about healing before they, or a loved one, pays the ultimate price.]
Editor's note: The following letter recently appeared on the Ambassador Watch web page:]
"Refuting Conder: There appears is the current column this remark: 'He said to this day no one from any of the CofG's has ever been able to refute Conder.' Just because he isn't aware of a refutation doesn't mean it isn't. I have not read any, and I have heard only one that I recall, and that in a sermon by Vance Stinson which was then, and perhaps still is, found at www.biblestudy.org. I think that Vance did a credible job given the limitations that a sermon presents.'
What readers should know is that the hypotheses which are attributed to Darrell (I have not read his works) are the image of teachings from the 1800's which were discredited by reputable scholars before Darrell, you or I were ever born. Much of the mythology synonymized with the Christ accounts has simply been shown to be modern invention. It's a bit like the current teaching that the Plantagenet king, Richard Coeur de Lion, was gay. Try finding that in any history book written prior to the 1940s. I recommend, to any who want a wrench to stick into Darrell's works, that they look at works such as McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
The triple problems of trying to second guess the New Testament are that (1) we are almost 2000 years removed from its origins and evidence tends to disappear with time, (2) the guys that wrote it were willing to lose their lives over what they taught, and (3) they dared teach it in the places where the events are purported to have occurred soon enough after their occurrence that the accounts could easily have been challenged by the locals who knew better."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0968601405/themissingdim-20MD: The "mythic Christ" stuff goes back at least as far as David Friedrich Strauss in the 1830s, but is still very much alive and well (though it naturally tends to be dismissed out of hand by most committed Christians). Perhaps the most accessible contemporary presentation is Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle" (both the book and the web site).
Conder seems to have succeeded in doing what no other COG critic has ever managed, borrow from the most controversial critical scholarship, cross-pollinate it with selected COG distinctives, and then get the hybrid package taken seriously in Church of God circles."
Response by Lawrence L. Anthony, Senior Bible Consultant for www.darrellwconder.com:
Hello,
I would like to respond to criticisms from one of your readers who indicates that Vance Stinson refuted Darrell Conder's research in a sermon, and then recommends Josh McDowell. I find it incredible that Armstrongites are still dragging up Josh McDowell in their feeble attempts to excuse their blind faith, especially in light of McDowell's attacks on Herbert Armstrong and his doctrines. As Darrell pointed out, if McDowell's books are credible for use against his research, then it is credible to refute Armstrongism. Also, it amazes me that your reader is condemning Darrell's research when he admits that he hasn't read any of it! (In case he hasn't read it, Proverbs 18:13 says "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." Perhaps your reader should consider that verse before he writes again.)
Your reader offers a few bits of disconnected detail about the similarity in pre-Christian myth and Christian tradition and seems to think that he has settled the questions raised by Darrell Conder. The fact is that Darrell's use of mythology is only a small part of his research. The mainstay of his writings is pointing out and documenting the blatant contradictions found from Genesis to Revelation. These are the points that COG ministers continue to ignore, and refuse to answer. If your reader had bothered to read Darrell's works, perhaps he would be like me and thousands of other former Worldwiders who have abandoned Armstrongism for the jumbled mess that it is. Maybe that's what he fears.
By the way, if you'd like to read Darrell's answer to Vance Stinson's deceptive sermon, it is posted on Darrell's web site.
Sincerely, Lawrence Anthony
Darrell Conder's Response to Vance Stinson's Sermon
Editor's note: For those interested, this is Darrell W. Conder's November 30, 1996 response to Vance Stinson's sermon denouncing Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time, to which Mr. Anthony referred in the above letter. (From the Fall, 1996 edition of Masada Magazine):
Garner Ted Armstrong and MBLTT
In a sermon delivered on 11/30/96 Church of God, International leader, Garner Ted Armstrong, had this to say about Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time: "Recently, some people were very upset because a man had written a book in which he is impugning and ridiculing Jesus Christ himself and the entirety of the New Testament. He sent us a book, which now Vance [Stinson] is going to have to try to take his time, and he is so beleaguered he is absolutely so overwhelmed with so much to do and so am I, to try and help these people to understand something that they could understand if they would simply go out to a Bible book store and buy Halley's Bible Handbook and the Angus Bible Handbook, and maybe just study their Bibles for themselves. And then they've got to understand something, pardon my vernacular: doctrine is not where it's at! Now what I mean by that is that I've said before, you cannot take a doctrine and stack it atop another doctrine . . ."
I've no idea what GTA is talking about by that last statement. The entirety of his church's theology is a piece-meal doctrinal structure that is precariously stacked. Let me also clarify something else: We never sent GTA or his church a copy of my book . . .
Imagine! Garner Ted Armstrong says that the questions raised by my book are so simple that they could be answered by Halley's Bible Handbook! With all due respect to Henry Halley, his little handbook could never scratch the surface of the questions raised in MBLTT and had Garner Ted Armstrong even bothered to crack the cover of my book, he'd have known that. Of course, Ted's reference to the simplistic Halley's Bible Handbook was meant as an insult to those in his church who were asking questions.
Overlooking GTA's sarcasm and his insult to his people, let's go to Mr. Stinson's sermon. . . . (By the way Ted, Vance didn't once quote from Halley's Bible Handbook or the Angus Bible Handbook in his sermon!)
Vance Stinson and CGI's Official Stand Against MBLTT
One of the few ministers remaining in the Church of God, International fulfilled his boss' request to answer my book. A tape of Vance Stinson's sermon, which is dated 1-11-97, was sent to our offices by one of GTA's former supporters. (Undoubtedly one of those whom GTA sarcastically denounced in his sermon as lacking the most basic of bible study skills!)
Stinson started his attack upon MBLTT by reading Jude verse 3 from the RSV: "Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
Following this opening, Stinson offers remarks that have nothing whatsoever to do with my book except to plant a definite prejudice in the minds of his audience. However, in opening his attack on Mystery Babylon and the Lost Ten Tribes in the End Time Stinson at least clarifies GTA's misinformation that we sent the book to his office. Stinson admits that the book was sent by some concerned members of their church - who, after reading the book, became former members.
As so many ministers are now being forced to do, Vance Stinson admits that he had known for years about the astonishing similarities between the pagan mystery religions and the Christian faith. I would ask why this information hasn't been openly discussed in the various Churches of God? Why did it take a book like MBLTT to force this admission from the ministry? (I will have more to say on this later.) Stinson quotes page 3 of my book: "I was seeing historical evidence that the story of Jesus' birth and death found in the Gospel accounts was known centuries before Jesus was born. Furthermore I saw that the details of this story were the very cornerstones of the ancient Babylonian mysteries, a religion that I had proved beyond doubt was but a damnable worship of Satan himself." Stinson says of this: "Can you believe that this was a member of God's Church and now he's making statements like that and using language like that? That's very frightening to say the least."
Well, Vance, I learned "language like that" from your boss and other "leading" ministers in "God's Church!" And, I make "statements like that" because of what I've recently learned, which you and the church's collective ministry has seen fit to conceal!
The next phase of Stinson's attack is one that I saw about two years ago. It came from Christian writer Ralph Woodrow and was borrowed by Worldwide Church of God Pastor General, Joseph Tkach. At the time Woodrow and Tkach had joined hands to denounce their former stand on the pagan influence of the Babylonian mysteries in Christian worship. (Many of you know of Woodrow's book, Babylon Mystery Religion, which explores the subject of the pagan origin of many Christian doctrines, and which was promoted by the Worldwide Church of God under Herbert Armstrong's leadership—I bought my first copy in the Ambassador College bookstore).
To make their point, Woodrow and the current leaders of the Worldwide Church of God chose examples from pagan mythology that had very little in common with the Christian ceremonies which they are now embracing. With this misinformation the question was smugly asked if one could see any similarities in the stories? Of course when presented with such a dissimilar example one would have to admit that there wasn't any connection! Such a trick proved very successful for the leadership of the Worldwide Church of God and it is one that Stinson uses in his attack on my research.
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Stinson picked out one of the very pagan gods that Woodrow and Tkach's WCG used to make their point. First Stinson quoted a passage from the New Testament about the virgin birth, then he read an account of the birth of Heracles. Of course, if Stinson was trying to be honest with his audience he would have read the accounts of the virgin-born sons of god that I used in both my books. Instead, he deceptively made his point with the full knowledge that the majority of his listeners wouldn't bother to research his statements, nor read my books.
The truth is that there are several pre-Christian legends of Heracles, which Stinson conveniently forgot to tell his audience. With this fact concealed he chose the one that was least like the Christian accounts of Jesus' birth, which effectively deceived his listeners.
To make my point, I would refer the reader to Barbara Walker's book, The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 393. The one account of Heracles that Stinson didn't mention tells how he was begotten by the heavenly father of an earthly virgin, whose "consort didn't lie with her until after her Divine Child was born." This earthly "son of god" had Twelve Labors which symbolized the sun's passage through the twelve houses of the zodiac. He was called the Savior of the Universe; he was worshiped as the "savior who died and rose again like the sun, which is why a solar eclipse was supposed to have attended his death. . . . Heracles' was called Prince of peace, Sun of Righteousness, Light of the World. He was the same sun greeted daily by Persians and Essenes with the ritual phrase, 'He is risen.' . . . He was sacrificed at the spring equinox, [and] . . . He was born at the winter solstice (Christmas)."
Ignoring this version of Heracles' story, Stinson gives his dissimilar account and then says in a somewhat all-knowing pleading voice, "now tell me, do you find any similarities between that story of Heracles and what I just read you from Luke's Gospel? Where are the similarities we are told about?" Well, had he been honest and read the truth of Heracles, or any of the other dozens of sun-gods, he and his listeners would have had the answer and Vance could have remained an honest man! But then, to be fair to Vance, people have this funny habit of not financially supporting ministers once they lose faith in their doctrines.
After reading his account of Heracles Stinson says: "as I look at this I wonder where is the virgin birth?" This is pure deception! Stinson knows very well where the virgin birth account is to be found in paganism yet he misleads his audience with his aside and his grossly deceptive example! In his next statement I can only believe that Stinson is being completely and deliberately dishonest. Having already explained that he had once researched the mythological connection to Christianity Stinson says that in the other accounts of pagan saviors he could find no evidence of a "virgin birth."
In a sarcastic manner, which he surely learned from his boss, Stinson dishonestly sums up his "evidence" against my explanation of the pagan influence found in the Gospel birth narratives. I say "dishonest" because Stinson doesn't quote any portion of my book on this point: "Boy, doesn't that just make you think of the story of the Gospel? [he laughs] No of course not, its totally ridiculous."
Stinson next appeals to John 6 and the account of the blood and flesh of Jesus and how such cannibalism could give one eternal life. He quotes the scripture and then reads an account of Dionysus. Picking out very select pagan elements he compares them to the Christian accounts. For instance, he notes that the ceremonies of the Mysteries included sexual rites. "Does that sound like the Christian counterpart," Stinson asks? Actually, Vance, that would depend upon the church and its ministry, wouldn't it? [Editor: This was written before Stinson's boss, Garner Ted Armstrong, had been embroiled in his very public sex scandals.]
Well, again, if Stinson wants to be completely honest he should have quoted from my first book concerning the pagan similarities and then showed where I was wrong; but then he couldn't ask the question about "where are the similarities?" in his purposely composed deceit had he quoted from my book.
Stinson goes on to the gospel of Matthew and the account of Jesus' resurrection. He employs the same deceptive formula here by quoting from the account of the Egyptian god Osiris. Once again Stinson uses blatant deception to make his point. He makes the charge that the resurrection accounts of the pagan savior-gods were not historical, like, he asserts, that of Jesus. Please show me Vance where Jesus' supposed resurrection is to be found in any historical account? Outside the NT you cannot and you know it!
The truth is that the accounts of a sun-god rising from the dead is a legend based on a once-living king of Babylon and his mother, who was later proclaimed the virgin queen of heaven. Stinson knows this, his church teaches this and it has been accepted as doctrine by most of the splinter groups from the Worldwide Church of God. Actually, The Plain Truth Magazine, which his boss controlled for decades as the executive editor, published the accounts of this sun-god and the history when it suited their purpose. The account was taught as history at Ambassador College, which his boss ruled as vice chancellor. Vance Stinson full well knows the story behind the sun-god Osiris - that is, Osiris is but another version of the Babylonian Tammuz (the biblical Nimrod) and Isis is the Egyptian equivalent to Babylonian Queen Semiramis (read Garner Ted Armstrong's booklet on Christmas and his Easter reprint article for two examples to document my statement).
Okay Vance, forget Osiris and quote from my first book and inform your listeners about all the resurrected savior gods who brought salvation into the world by their deaths and resurrections; show all of us the error in these accounts and forget your deceitful examples. In fact, I openly challenge Mr. Stinson and Mr. Ted Armstrong to a public debate on the New Testament and the charges raised in my book. I will come down to Tyler with some of our supporters if you will agree to host us.
Pagans Borrowed their Religions from the Christians!
With the boldest of faces Vance Stinson stands before his sheep and tells them that it wasn't the Christians that borrowed from the pagans, but that it was the pagans who borrowed their accounts from the Christians. Incredible! This goes smack in the face of 2,000 years of Christian history, and 4,000 years of Mesopotamian history! To defend my book against this ridiculous statement, which Vance makes repeatedly, I need only refer the reader to my first volume and its documentation with numerous quotes from the so-called church fathers. In fact, let me here quote from two ancient Christian Church fathers on the subject of pagan borrowing. Minucius Felix, a Christian Church father of the third century, makes a very revealing statement when he vehemently denied the pagan allegations that Christians worshiped the cross: "You it is, you Pagans, who are the most likely people to adore wooden crosses . . . You [the pagans] adore crosses of wood because they form part of your gods. And, surely, your military ensigns, standards, and banners, what are they but gilded [GOLD] and decorated crosses? Your trophies of victory copy not merely the appearance of simple cross, but that of a MAN FASTENED TO IT AS WELL." Another ancient Christian Church father, Tertullian, weakly defends Christianity against pagan accusations of borrowing the crucifixion account from them by saying: "The origin of your gods is derived from figures moulded on a cross. All those rows of images on your standards are the appendages of crosses." (Marcus Minucius Felix, The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix, pp. 106-107. Also see Walker, Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, p. 188, quoted from Doane, T.W., Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, N.Y., University Books Inc. 1971, p. 345. Most of these savior gods were nailed to their crosses. Doane, op. cit., p. 191.)
I ask you Vance, why didn't these church fathers simply answer the pagan accusations by reminding them that it was they who had done the borrowing from the account of Jesus' crucifixion? I mean, if you really believe this nonsense about pagans borrowing from Christians, then why, Vance, didn't you just start off your sermon with that great revelation?
Stinson's remarks that there are few pagan writings to defend the claim that the Gospel stories were known before Jesus' time. However, if he wants to be completely honest he should explain why that is. Why didn't Stinson tell his sheep how the Christian Church waged war for the first five centuries against pagan writings in order to eradicate the type of material that he is condemning? Why didn't he inform his sheep that the real reason for the Crusades of the Middle Ages was to expressly attack and burn libraries outside their jurisdiction?
Let me use some of the evidence for this destruction from both my books: Concerning the great library of Alexandria, built by Ptolemy, we read: "This Library became the most extensive and celebrated of the ancient world, containing some 700,000 manuscript books at the time it was savagely destroyed, in 391 A.D., by the benighted Christian zeal and fury of Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria and his crazy monks of Nitria, as related in Kingsley's Hypatia or any history of the times." (Wheless, Joseph, Forgery in Christianity, p. 58.)
What historian does not cringe when they read of the entire contents of the ancient libraries of the Aztecs emptied and burned by the Spanish Christian priests upon their invasion of the Americas, or when the Crusaders destroyed all the books and scrolls they came across. In this century a good deal of importance has been placed on the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls but imagine what knowledge disappeared from the world when original Hebrew scrolls by the tens of thousands perished during the Christian invasion of the Holy Land. Back in Europe, in 1233, the collected works of Maimonides were burned as well as 12,000 volumes of the Talmud. Cardinal Ximenes "delivered to the flames in the square of Grenada eighty thousand Arabic manuscripts." (Graham, Lloyd, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 444.) The Inquisition in France caused twenty-four wagon loads of hand-written Jewish books to be burned in 1242. Such horrific acts were simply a continuation of an ancient Christian custom.
In the first centuries of Christianity vast amounts of historical materials met papal fires, such as the contents of the ancient library of the Palatine Apollo, which was burned on the orders of Pope Gregory the Great. His decree stated that the library was to be burned "lest its secular literature [he means pagan works] distract the faithful from the contemplation of heaven." (Smith, Homer, Man and His Gods, pp. 228, 253.)
Every book in the Gnostic Basilides, Porphyry's thirty-six volumes, 27,000 papyrus rolls of the Mysteries were all burned. This act alone probably rid the world of the overwhelming historical connections of Nimrod and Semiramis to their present day Christian Church. Ptolemy Philadelphus collected 270,000 ancient documents and burned them. Up in flames went thousands of parchments and scrolls, many dating centuries before the birth of Jesus. Up in flames went many pages of evidence of the heresies of Christianity standing against the truth of Elokim! Edward Carpenter writes of the Christian Church: ". . . they took special pains to destroy the pagan records and so obliterate the evidence of their own dishonesty." (Graham, Lloyd, Deceptions and Myths of the Bible, p. 444.)
The early war on the Holy Scriptures can be seen in Pope Gregory's (A.D. 540-604) command for the common people not to read the Bible, while denouncing "all secular education as folly." His orders were to finally become the rule of Christianity: "In 1234, the Synod of Taragona declared that ipso facto anyone was a heretic, who, having in his possession a copy of the Scriptures in the vernacular, refused to surrender it to be burned within eighty days."
The attack on secular books - including the Bible in any language but Latin - continued throughout the centuries, as the following demonstrates: "In 1824, in his Encyclical, 'ubi primun,' Pope Leo XII, wrote thus: 'You are aware, venerable Brothers, that a certain Bible Society is impudently [shamelessly] spreading throughout the world, which despising the tradition of the holy Fathers and the decrees of the Council of Trent, is endeavoring to translate or rather to pervert the Scriptures into the vernaculars of all nations . . . It is to be feared that by false interpretation the Gospel of Christ will become the Gospel of man . . ." (Barrett, While Peter Sleeps, p. 223.) The pope goes on to urge the Bishops "to admonish their flocks that owing to human temerity more harm than good may come from INDISCRIMINATE BIBLE READING!" (Ibid., pp. 226-227.)
The Christian war on "secular" education and "harmful" books (a policy which Herbert W. Armstrong and the old Worldwide Church of God also embraced) was almost completely successful. Fortunately, for those of us not satisfied with the assurances of men, they overlooked some bits and pieces of truth. For instance, one of the most startling similarities between Jesus and a pagan god comes from India and the account of Krishna. Avoiding such a problem (which, by the way, I raised in my book), Stinson says: "is it not become obvious that it wasn't the Christians that borrowed from the pagans, it was the pagans who borrowed from the Christians. Where do they get the idea of savior gods returning to life, why from the Gospel narratives, and pagans have been known to do that haven't they, copying other religions, of course they have?"
Again, that last statement flies in the face of history! The Christian Church had standing orders to adopt pagan customs and assimilate them into Christianity. Did the church do this? Christian Church history openly admits the truth, as I quote in my books. When the ancient mystery religions met the Christian Church they were defeated and absorbed. Even though they have disappeared, the mystery religions of old are alive and well inside the doctrines of Christianity, and this includes the person of Jesus Christ.
Let's look closer at Vance's claims by asking him if they mean that the literature his church produces, and all the past writings of its parent organization, are based on a lie? Vance, in this literature you and your church seek to prove the pagan, pre-Christian origin of Christmas, Easter and Sunday worship by pointing out their antiquity, and by citing the Christian Church's custom of assimilating these customs. Now Vance, do you mean to say that it's the other way around? The pre-Christian pagans borrowed their religion from the Christians? Well, please go forthwith and correct your church's position on Christmas, Easter and the Sabbath!
Seriously, have you forgotten your history Vance and how CGI and its parent organization used this information to convince people of the paganization of the Christian Church? So I ask you Vance, which is it? Was CGI and the WCG lying to us? Are you willing to go that far just to denounce me? (We will return to this question in reviewing Vance Stinson's letter to me.)
Next, Stinson chides me for using a particular account of Apollonius of Tyana, which I use on page 3 of my book. He insinuates that I'm not being honest in presenting this account. The reason I used this account was to simply illustrate why I had doubts after reading such material. I did not use this particular account to prove any other point but that. However, Vance Stinson doesn't make this clear by failing to quote my comments on Apollonius in full, which are: "I quote the above as illustration of a major problem that arose during my writing of volume one of this work. While presenting the evidence of the counterfeit saviors, who are found literally in every ancient nation on earth, serious doubts forced their way to the forefront of my conscience from time to time."
These remarks put my use of the Apollonius account into proper perspective. But then Stinson's use of the Apollonius material was to hold my book up to ridicule and thus keep his sheep in ignorance. His motives were an unspoken admonition for his congregation not to read the book.
To be expected, Stinson doesn't inform his listeners that the rest of my book goes on to outline my research into other pagan gods and why I came to my ultimate conclusion. What Stinson doesn't say, which I make abundantly clear, is that I didn't start out by trying to disprove the New Testament. My first book amply demonstrates this, bolstered by the fact that numerous Sabbath-keeping Christian ministers advised their congregations to buy and read it - including some Church of God, International ministers. Stinson doesn't tell his listeners that it was with ultimate disappointment that I came to the conclusion that I outline in MBLTT.
Well, I need not continue to answer this type of material. What I will do is something that neither Stinson nor his boss would dare: I will invite you to order my book and then to write for the tape that Church of God, International is sending out. Their address is Church of God International, P.O. Box 2530, Tyler, Texas 75510. I assume that the tape is free of charge as is most of their material.
If you read my book and listen to Stinson's sermon, you will then find that he fails to address the fundamental question raised by my book, which are the unanswerable contradictions found throughout the New Testament. . . .
I will again note that Stinson, untrue to his boss' boast, didn't use Henry Halley's famous little book against me. Instead Vance advises his audience to go to their Christian book store and seek out the anti-Armstrong author Josh McDowell's book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict. Absolutely incredible! Considering so many Church of God ministers are appealing to this man, perhaps old Josh should also be put on retainer!
Although mentioning the title of my book, Stinson doesn't once use my name. Had he done this it would have given those rare "I'll decide-for-myself" people in his congregation the necessary information to locate my book, and perhaps they might join the thousands who have flocked out of the Churches of God!
The Church of God, International, Post Office Box 2530, Tyler, Texas 75710
February 27, 1997
Dear Mr. Conder:
I am writing in response to some of the comments that recently appeared in one of your publications. These comments concern a sermon I recently gave on your position regarding the supposed relationship between the story of Jesus of Nazareth and the mythological legends of so-called "savior-gods" of paganism. Since I did not want anyone to get the idea that I was attacking you, personally, I did not mention your name. I do not wish to engage in name-calling, personal attacks, or anything of the sort. I am interested only in understanding and analyzing the issues, and in sharing my conclusions with others. Of course, I do intend to defend what I prove to be true, but I have always been willing to honestly investigate new concepts.
The truth is, I have not clung tenaciously to everything I was taught in the WCG (and, by the way, I never attended Ambassador College). For instance, I have known for a good many years that Hislop's The Two Babylons is loaded with doubtful speculations based on highly questionable guesswork. Yet, many WCG ministers treated it as if it were an honest, accurate, and unbiased piece of scholarship. I realized years ago that Hislop had to do some major 'reaching' in order to establish historical connections between certain pagan and Catholic customs. After drawing my own conclusions, I learned that Hislop 'is something of a joke in the scholarly world' (if I may borrow your words). In fact, a number of the source you cited in your book are something of a joke in the scholarly world. No doubt, many of the same scholars who think of Josh McDowell as a 'joke' would categorize you similarly. They would laugh you to scorn for failing to recognize the 'problems' with the texts of the Old Testament. They would call you inconsistent because of your New Testament/Christian-like descriptions of the activity of 'Satan the devil in these end times,' and especially for your acceptance of the British-Israel theory.
[Darrell's Comment: Mr. Stinson was absolutely correct here in his criticism of me. As most know, since this exchange with Vance, I have come to see the truth about the Old Testament and have abandoned it for the deception that it is.]
Yes, I used some of McDowell's material in my sermon, and recommended some of his books at the conclusions of my message. I also recommended books by other authors. McDowell is not a 'scholar' (actually, it depends upon how one defines the term); he is a researcher. He compiles the works of others and presents his findings in a way that is easy for the average person to understand. By introducing people to McDowell's works, I am introducing them to the works of many scholars who have dealt exhaustively with the agnostics, liberal theologians, form critics, and reactionists who claim that the Gospel accounts are 'remarkably similar' to the stories of pagan gods and heroes. I would say, generally, that the list of references in McDowell's books are more important than the text.
You want to know why those who have cited the works of others (in answering your arguments) cannot 'just answer the questions for themselves.' You know as well as I that any competent researcher will always cite available material. Your book is filled with references to books written by other people, and it is clearly obvious that your conclusions were not based on things you discovered through study of the ancient epics; rather, you reported on the research, the theories, and the interpretations of other people. That's fine. So why discredit me by suggesting that I relied upon a single source, and a bad one at that?
The truth is, I was exposed to the 'Jesus is pagan' theories years before you published your book, and was troubled by it at first. I was also exposed to many other concepts designed to discredit the Bible - not the New Testament only, but the Old Testament as well - and found them difficult to deal with at first. In fact, I had serious doubts about the Bible in general. There was even a time when I actually looked for evidence against its authenticity! I assure you that 'evidence' against the Old Testament is just as compelling' as 'evidence' against the New Testament! Textual problems as well as similarities between Old Testament accounts and pagan legends are abundant. But, as I discovered through my own careful research, there are good, solid answers to these claims, and these claims, and these answers are based on sound scholarship. You are not going to get the answers from the sources you have thus far relied upon. I suggest you take an honest look at the other side of this issue, that you drop your WCG baggage (which I believe is the real root of your problem), and that you give the scholars who have already answered your claims a fair and unbiased hearing.
The 'Jesus and the savior-gods' theories you put forth are as old as the hills, and I would be truly surprised to find out that any competent scholar today takes them seriously. My question to you is: Are you honestly willing to reconsider this issue? If you are, then why not start by publishing this letter in your magazine?
Sincerely,
Vance A. Stinson
Darrell W. Conder's reply:
Dear Mr. Stinson:
Thank you for your letter. You have the honor of being only one of two ministers who have taken the time to personally address me on the contents of my recent book. I would suggest, however, that the tardiness of your letter is a bit like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. It would have been far better and Christian if you had written me before your sermon. I was once a solid member and worker for Christ. As such, shouldn't you have come to me as a "brother that had gone astray" and reasoned with me to see my "error" and repent after reading my book? If I had failed to respond should you not have come back with another and made yet one more attempt to reason with me? Isn't this a NT command? Or have you and Mr. Ted Armstrong judged me unfit for such consideration? I suggest that this is the case.
I can only suspect that your motivation for writing was not to admonish me as a Christian who had gone astray, but rather for an altogether different reason. I suspect, for instance, that the only reason you and CGI have given me the time of day is because you have lost numerous members due to my book. (See the letter from one of these following this reply.) The truth is that you'd have never given any of this a second thought if my book had made little impact among your people.
Thank you for your clarification about your lack of an Ambassador College education. Perhaps sir, you have an advantage over many other ministers. Yet, I have to say, based on your sermon, that it is my opinion that the spirit of Ambassador has taken its toll on your understanding and reason. Perhaps, Vance, you are too close to the forest to see the trees.
You attack Hislop's work and hence, you think, my work. When I lived in England I spent considerable time in the British Library, in part, for the express purpose to check on Mr. Hislop's sources. I doubt you have done this. What I proved to my satisfaction was that Alexander Hislop was quite correct in his conclusions. I also found that his sources were considered the best of his day. In fact, many of the sources Hislop cites are still at the top of the list of scholarly references in the field of mythology. I might also point you to Sir James G. Frazer's classical Golden Bough set produced in the early 1900's. I would ask if you would also dismiss Sir James' work? If so, you would have to dismiss The Encyclopedia Britannica as its editors use him as an authority. Sir James, by the way, uses Hislop as a reference!
I am aware, as you point out, that many modern scholars reject Hislop. Of course what you neglected to mention was that these scholars are almost entirely Christian. Although in his day some in the Christian scholarly world hailed Hislop's work as a classic, with numerous scholars quoting from it, there is little guessing as to why most Valentine's Day, Christmas, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, Halloween and Sunday-keeping Christian ministers savage Hislop.
If Hislop's conclusions are followed to their logical end they raise a serious doubt about the very foundations of Christianity. Perhaps Hislop's nineteenth century Christian supporters weren't astute enough to understand this, but in this century others were. Is it any wonder that born-again twentieth century Christians denounce his findings? How many of these people do you suppose would endorse a work that traces the origins of their cherished Christian customs to ancient Babylon?
And, while we're at it Vance, where does Garner Ted Armstrong get the source of his information for CGI's reprint article "Line Upon Line, Should Christians Observe Easter" and the Christmas booklet, Facts You Should Know About Christmas, if it isn't from Hislop? Many statements sound like they are right out of The Two Babylons. I have to say they sound like they're out of Hislop's work because GTA doesn't offer any references for his work, which I do, and which allows you to criticize.
When GTA writes on page 3 of Facts You Should Know about Christmas!: "They would see symbols having to do with the worship of life, fertility, sex and reproduction, Nimrod and his mother-wife, orbs and eggs, logs and tree, wreaths and berries, and the cheerful 'ho,ho,ho,' of jolly old 'Saint Nick."', what is his source for these statements? When he discusses Nimrod, whom he identifies with Horus, Osiris and "his mother-wife, Semiramis" in that same booklet, on what source is he drawing? And, again, when Mr. Armstrong mentions Nimrod and Semiramis on page 3 of his Easter article, what is his source for that information? Please answer Vance!
At any rate, I didn't use Hislop as a major reference source as you seem to suggest. In my first book, Mystery Babylon the Great, I purposely stayed clear of Hislop for the most part. I did this because I was more than aware that he had fallen into disrepute in Christian circles. For instance, when he decided to introduce Christmas and Easter into the Worldwide Church of God, Joseph Tkach, Jr. went on the attack against Hislop. To make his point that Hislop's work was unreliable he told an outright lie in a Worldwide News article. Tkach went so far as to quote something in The Two Babylons that isn't there. I suggest that Christian "scholarship" will go to any extreme to denounce embarrassments to their doctrines.
Now there is something you failed to mention in your sermon, perhaps because you were unaware of it. In my first book I upheld the Christian doctrines of the old WCG (as well as your own CGI doctrines). I did this so well that cases of my book were ordered from ministers and members in Global Church of God, Worldwide Church of God, United Church of God, and yes, your own Church of God, International. (Actually, some CGI ministers even preached sermons from that book.) One of the reasons that this book went over so well was because I stayed away from Hislop, even though I didn't consider his work to be "highly questionable" as his critics are saying.
I was going to illustrate this to you and our readers by printing the bibliography from my first book, but because it contained hundreds of references and would fill up five full pages in this format, I can only refer you to my book. Actually, if you'd like Vance, I'll loan you a copy of my first book so that you can see for yourself the research I've put into my quest for Christian truth and at the same time check my references.
Once you read the bibliography of my first volume, I would like to know what you found objectionable? (In my second book I used the book by Garner Ted Armstrong, The Real Jesus, as a source. Do you find that unscholarly?) Many of the reference works in volume one are standard and well-respected Christian sources. How interesting that these sources were fine with your fellow ministers as long as I used them to defend Christianity. But when I used the same sources to question Christianity, my work, by your accusation, becomes unscholarly. Of course, the term "scholar" is relative, isn't it? When the newspaper, In Transition, published of a review of my Waldensian research in August, 1996 their headline read: "Scholar asks, did the Waldensians keep the seventh-day Sabbath?" I doubt they'd call me a scholar today!
You speculate that many of the scholars who think Josh McDowell is a joke would also place me in the same category. Well, you and I both know that would depend, wouldn't it? If they are Christian scholars then certainly they would denounce me as a "joke." However, atheist scholars would probably find a number of uses for my work.
I must comment that it is ironic for you to use this defense in attacking my research. You and I both know that the "scholars" of which you speak would denounce your church and its doctrines as a cult. They would, Vance, "laugh to scorn" your sermons and those of Ted Armstrong. The further irony of using these men against me is that the old WCG denounced such people as "ministers of Satan." And is it not a fact that your own CGI would also consider the likes of McDowell a minister of Satan? But, any old port in a storm, hey Vance?
Talk about alleged "ministers of Satan," take a look at the scholarship of Josh McDowell's book: a professor at the Oriental Seminary at Johns Hopkins University, the chairman of a division at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a professor of theology in the Free Church College, the head of a department at Nazarene Theological Seminary, a graduate in theology of Detroit Bible College, a vicar of St. Ippolyts, a principal of London Bible College, the Director of Evangelism for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the director of the Christian Research Science Center, a professor of theology at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, a rector of All Souls Church, a graduate from Dallas Theological seminary, one from Southern Methodist University . . . etc.
Would you care to offer your opinion about these people's "unbiased and scholarly" contribution to McDowell's book Vance?
You are right on one point, the Christian scholars of which you speak would all be upset at my defense of the so-called Old Testament. But what does that prove?
It is odd Vance that you should pick on me because of the "British-Israel" theory. This doctrine is mainstay of your own church! As the facts stand I don't accept the British-Israel theory. I do believe in the identity of modern-day Israel, but not the so-called history that was produced by the British-Israel World Federation of London. Actually, if I may say so, I was amazed at Garner Ted Armstrong's use of this material in his sermon on the Stone of Scone's removal back to Scotland. (This was, by the way, the sermon in which he announced that you'd be doing a refutation of my book.) He rattled off some so-called history that was nothing more than an outright fabrication.
If you continue to read Masada Magazine you will be seeing future articles challenging British-Israel mythology, which your own church promotes in their literature. Again, this is not to say that the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples are not descended from Israel, because I believe that with all my heart! Its just that there has been a tremendous amount of fable attached to the whole question, which, in turn, has brought ridicule down on the legitimate history. In effect, Vance, your criticism of me and British-Israelism is answering a matter before you've heard it.
[DWC Comment: After exhaustive research on Anglo-Israelism, I have since abandoned the theory as wild speculation.]
Now to Josh McDowell. As you will see in this issue I've addressed this man and his "work" in some detail. You say: "I would say, generally, that the list of references in McDowell's books are more important than the text." What do you mean by such a statement? This reasoning is absurd! Does this mean that my book, or any book, should be rejected or accepted by virtue of the listed references? If that is the case, then I ask you what is wrong with my book?
This aside, let me offer a sample of McDowell's "evidence that demands a verdict" for the benefit of our readers: In "proving" Jesus' Messiahship, McDowell writes: "A coed at the University of Pittsburgh says: 'Whatever joys and gladness, all put together of my past experience, these can never equal that special joy and peace that the Lord Jesus Christ has given me since that time when he entered into my life to rule and to guide."
That gem, Vance, is from page 136 of Evidence that Demands a Verdict and it is by no means the only one like it!
You talk about McDowell's references while criticizing mine? Well, look at the list I printed above; have you ever noticed or seriously considered that McDowell's reference are almost entirely Christian? On top of that, have you also noticed that the majority are far from being the unbiased books of real Christian scholarship? Of course, had McDowell used the real scholarship of Christianity, ministers like you would have labeled him a liberal. This is because real Christian scholarship is exploding the mythology of Christianity. You know who I'm talking about (Christian bishop Spong, for example!) because ministers like you do sermons and write articles about these people and express your shock and disbelief at what they are disseminating. But there is no chance of this in McDowell's works. He stays as far from real scholarship as you do from the truth of the Holy Scriptures.
Vance, do and you and GTA really uphold the works of the Moody Bible Institute; American Tract Society; the Jehovah's Witnesses; Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., Christian Business Men's Committee, Scripture Press Publications, Inc. Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, World Literature Crusade, South America Missions, Christian Life, Inc., Contemporary Christian Acts, Inc., and my favorite, the Sword of the Lord Publications? These are some of the "scholarly" references McDowell uses in the book you recommended to your listeners. Can you honestly tell me that you consider these works and their authors unbiased whose only motives are to find the real truth about Christian origins?
As to your answer to my question about ministers not being able to answer for themselves. I think you miss my point, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear - if so, I apologize. I'm not asking that you answer about mythology or canonization without references. I'm simply asking why it is you can't answer the questions raised by the Scriptures themselves? Let's cut through it all Vance: by addressing the mythologicalizing and canonization of the NT arguments I raise in the beginning of my book Christian ministers like you are relieved from the burden of facing the real issues. Tell me, how can you answer the claim of Matthew 2:15 that it fulfills the prophecy of Hosea 11? If Hosea 11 is a prophecy of Jesus then we must conclude that he came out of Egypt and burned incense unto Baal. How do you answer the contradicting genealogies of Matthew and Luke, outside of adopting the Catholic argument in the matter?
You say you've known the arguments about the mythological connections to Christianity for years? Then I ask why your congregation is completely ignorant in this regard? Why have you and CGI neglected to sermonize and explain the difficulties? Could it be that you are frightened of these questions and figured it was best to leave well enough alone? Obviously if you've known about the questions raised by my book for years, and have not bothered to address them until you were forced to do so, then you have been hiding something.
And another thing: You are the fifth minister that I know of who has defended the NT by attacking the problems with the so-called Old Testament. Isn't that a extremely weak and dangerous position. I have a sermon tape here from Bill Jahns, a United Church of God minister, who employs the same tactic; so do his colleagues, Jim Franks in his paper and Ken Treybig in his sermon. Considering Christianity is supposedly built upon the Old Testament and considering that the Christian bible is fraught with questions and contradictions, if the "OT" is really full of holes where, sir, does that leave you and the Christian Church?
I find your advice for me to drop my WCG baggage so that I can see more clearly, rather hypocritical. I was in Pasadena when your boss, Garner Ted Armstrong was fired, disfellowshiped, marked, publically humiliated, preached against and written against by his own father. After he formed the Church of God, International, I followed his progress. I listened to his early radio broadcasts and I have to say that he was one of the most bitter men I'd ever heard. I also can say that this attitude is still present in his sermons, although not nearly so pronounced as it once was. CGI ministers have admitted to me that Ted's bitterness is a real problem within your church.
In a reprint article entitled, "Could Jesus Have Sinned?", Garner Ted Armstrong wrote: "I was rejected by my own father, charged with doing things I simply did not do, and denied access to him for the next eight years - never given the opportunity to see him personally, or even so much as talk to him on the telephone. He died, never having permitted me to see him. That is rejection! And I can tell you, it HURT!" (1991, p. 9, emphasis GTA's.)
In fact, I have a letter here from your former associate and number two man at CGI, Mr. Ron Dart, which he wrote to a supporter of ours. She had written to Ted Armstrong asking why he was still so bitter with the Worldwide Church of God and his father after all these years. Her advice was that he should just get on with his work. Mr. Dart, who answered on behalf of GTA, wrote the following in a letter dated January 18, 1993: "I know Mr. Armstrong will appreciate what you had to say in your letter. He understands that there is still some anger in him, and acknowledges that he needs our prayers in helping him to overcome it. Sincerely, Ronald L. Dart"
If my "WCG baggage" is the root of my "problems" with the implication being that my research is flawed by this, where does this leave the doctrines of the Church of God, International or indeed, its very foundation?
You advise me also to give the scholars who have already written answering my questions a fair and unbiased hearing. Had you bothered to read my 300-page first book you could not have honestly written me such an admonition. After 40 plus years in the WCG and Christianity, defending it, preaching it, baptizing people into it and completely believing it, don't you dare admonish me about bias! Well, on second thought, perhaps I should admit that I was biased - completely biased! I was completely biased towards Christianity and would hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil, come hell or high water.
How ironic that I once made fun of books like the one I have recently written, and I had my laughs by reading excerpts from these "unbiased" scholarly works that you advise your people to read - which I have here on my book shelves, by the way. In other words, I had never researched the other side of the issue. The church told me not to read certain books and like a good little Christian boy who did as he was told, I didn't. (See the excerpt from the Ken Treybig sermon for one example about "the church" telling their sheep what to read.) However, now that I have read some of these banned books, I now know why the church told me not to read them - they contain questions that the ministry couldn't answer. This Vance, is what you are doing by denouncing my work. You are indirectly telling people not to read my book. In effect, you are saying, "I've read it for you, this is what it says, and let me tell you the truth of the matter."
I found your sermon unfair to me by not mentioning the fact that I strove day and night to prove that my Christian faith was true. Why did you wish to keep such vital information from your audience? I didn't start out trying to disprove Christianity, as some Christian ministers have blatantly lied about. I labored day and night to find the answers and salvage my faith. As the truth began to sink in that I wasn't going to find my answers - unless I was prepared to turn a blind eye and faithfully accept the word of men like you - I have to say I was devastated. As I've just stated, I have dozens of books here beside me defending Christianity, which can attest to the fact that I sought out every source for proof of my life-long love - that being Jesus Christ. Books such as those by McDowell, Gleason Archer, F.F. Bruce, etc., setting on my bookshelves are ample testimony to my desire to cover all the angles. Actually, I just counted 47 books on Christian defense here in my private library! So Vance, pardon me if I say to you that you are either ignorant or dishonest in what you fail to say about my motives.
At the end of your letter you ask if I will be honest by printing your letter in Masada. Well, it is here with my reply. But I'll go you one better. Since I published your letter with your church's address, and also in my article told people how to acquire a copy of your sermon, will you and GTA publish my article and this letter in your publications? All I ask is that people read my book and listen to your sermon(s) and judge the matter for themselves.
Yes Vance, I will honestly reconsider the entire matter of Christianity, but you must show me something better than McDowell, Archer or Bruce. You must show me from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah. Again, let us forget questions of mythology and canonization, etc. and go to the real issue of the Holy Scriptures. . . .
Sincerely,
Darrell Conder
----- Original Message -----
From: Snoweric913@cs.com
To: darrellwconder@msn.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: www.lionofjudah1.org now operational!
Dear Mr. Conder,
You may wish to examine my new Web site, including the page with my book described, "A Zeal for God Not According to Knowledge." Since what you wrote was the inspiration behind this book's writing, although you actually aren't quoted in it, you may wish to examine something that is a consequence of what you've been proclaiming. See www.lionofjudah1.org.
Sincerely,
Eric V. Snow
(The arch-anti-heretic & Christian apologist himself)
