PDA

View Full Version : Celebrating Christmas



Jaxb
11-20-2015, 02:27 PM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible. According to the Bible, celebrating Christmas is not one of the elements included in the worship of God. Worshiping God should not include the celebration of Christmas. How would you respond to this?

Cow Poke
11-20-2015, 02:41 PM
The shepherds celebrated the birth of the Christ child. We continue that tradition.

One Bad Pig
11-20-2015, 04:35 PM
The apostles were not sola scriptura; we shouldn't be either.

Faber
11-20-2015, 06:28 PM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible. According to the Bible, celebrating Christmas is not one of the elements included in the worship of God. Worshiping God should not include the celebration of Christmas. How would you respond to this?
I would tell them to mind their own business. They're self-righteous hypocrites. Unless God's word expressly forbids it, they have no business judging others. (And yes, God's Word expressly forbids hypocrisy and self-righteousness.) Granted, there are some things I see in modern Christmas celebration that is clearly against Scripture: Greed, drunken parties, deceit, shoplifting.

Tell them to read Galatians.

We could go on to state the Scripture nowhere commands us to use electronic sound systems, electric lights, wood pews, drums, guitars, organs, Sunday School classes, etc.

Cow Poke
11-20-2015, 06:31 PM
I would tell them to mind their own business. They're self-righteous hypocrites. Unless God's word expressly forbids it, they have no business judging others. (And yes, God's Word expressly forbids hypocrisy and self-righteousness.) Granted, there are some things I see in modern Christmas celebration that is clearly against Scripture: Greed, drunken parties, deceit, shoplifting.

Tell them to read Galatians.

We could go on to state the Scripture nowhere commands us to use electronic sound systems, electric lights, wood pews, drums, guitars, organs, Sunday School classes, etc.

And don't forget the Old Testament verses that forbid you from chopping down a tree and bringing it in your house and decorating it! :yes:

37818
11-21-2015, 02:04 PM
The apostles were not sola scriptura; we shouldn't be either.God's word says, ". . . know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." -- Deuteronomy 8:3 [Matthew 4:4]

If God spook it or speaks it we must yet live by it.

The Holy Qur'an? The Book of Mormon? The prophecy translated from Holy Spirit speaking in tongues?

I am of the understanding that John the Apostle to whom God gave the book of Revelation was the last living Apostle and prophet on earth until the two [Moses and Elijah] of the Revelation return. So it has become Sola Scritura.

What God has not explicitly forbidden is not forbidden in that Christmas[as in remembering the birth of the Savior] is not contrary to God's word or His Law.

Christianbookworm
11-21-2015, 02:21 PM
The internet is not in the Bible. So...

One Bad Pig
11-21-2015, 02:21 PM
God's word says, ". . . know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live." -- Deuteronomy 8:3 [Matthew 4:4]

If God spook it or speaks it we must yet live by it.
Sure.


The Holy Qur'an? The Book of Mormon?
:ahem: Don't be absurd. Besides, those who follow these writings consider them to be scripture. :doh:

The prophecy translated from Holy Spirit speaking in tongues?
As long as it's not another gospel. :shrug:


I am of the understanding that John the Apostle to whom God gave the book of Revelation was the last living Apostle and prophet on earth until the two [Moses and Elijah] of the Revelation return. So it has become Sola Scritura.
Did God leave with the last living apostle? :no:


What God has not explicitly forbidden is not forbidden in that Christmas[as in remembering the birth of the Savior] is not contrary to God's word or His Law.
...a position which is not in scripture. Thanks for refuting your own argument. :thumb:

37818
11-21-2015, 02:57 PM
...a position which is not in scripture. Thanks for refuting your own argument. :thumb:[I do not think so] If that is what you think, you are welcome. :thumb:

Jaxb
11-21-2015, 04:59 PM
The internet is not in the Bible. So...

They were talking about the things that pertain to the worship of God.

Jaxb
11-21-2015, 04:59 PM
The shepherds celebrated the birth of the Christ child. We continue that tradition.

That is a good example.

One Bad Pig
11-23-2015, 10:33 AM
[I do not think so] If that is what you think, you are welcome. :thumb:
If you think it is, please show it.

Sparko
11-23-2015, 11:25 AM
And don't forget the Old Testament verses that forbid you from chopping down a tree and bringing it in your house and decorating it! :yes:Jeremiah 10?

seer
11-23-2015, 12:00 PM
Jeremiah 10?

Scrooge!

11591

theophilus
11-24-2015, 05:30 AM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible.
On the other hand some Christians believe that any element that is not specifically forbidden can be included in worship.


One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
(Romans 14:5-9 ESV)

I don't know of any specific statement in the Bible either way, but the Bible does clearly command us not to judge a brother who interprets the Bible differently. Perhaps God deliberately left the question unresolved to give us the opportunity to show tolerance for those who don't interpret the Bible exactly the same way we do.

KingsGambit
11-24-2015, 07:20 PM
I'd like to know where in Scripture is the rule that only things mentioned in Scripture are permissible for worship.

(This seems like a Stone-Campbellite position.)

Teallaura
11-24-2015, 10:26 PM
I'd like to know where in Scripture is the rule that only things mentioned in Scripture are permissible for worship.

(This seems like a Stone-Campbellite position.)
David 25:15b






:teeth:

GoBahnsen
12-13-2015, 12:59 PM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible. According to the Bible, celebrating Christmas is not one of the elements included in the worship of God. Worshiping God should not include the celebration of Christmas. How would you respond to this? It seems you are asking whether or not Christmas type of traditions should be included along with baptism and the Lord's Supper.

To that I would say that inside of a Church there shouldn't be a Christmas tree, etc. Only because the tree and other things that often go along with celebrating Christ's birth do have their origins in pagan traditions surrounding the Winter solstice. Of course many church leaders are ignorant of this and thus bring these pagan traditions into the house of public worship. How God feels about it, I don't know.

We have a tree in our house. My wife likes having one. It does look nice. We enjoy it thru the lens of our Christian world-view.

Cerebrum123
12-13-2015, 02:51 PM
It seems you are asking whether or not Christmas type of traditions should be included along with baptism and the Lord's Supper.

To that I would say that inside of a Church there shouldn't be a Christmas tree, etc. Only because the tree and other things that often go along with celebrating Christ's birth do have their origins in pagan traditions surrounding the Winter solstice. Of course many church leaders are ignorant of this and thus bring these pagan traditions into the house of public worship. How God feels about it, I don't know.

We have a tree in our house. My wife likes having one. It does look nice. We enjoy it thru the lens of our Christian world-view.

Can you actually give examples of this instead of asserting it?

Jedidiah
12-13-2015, 04:44 PM
A lot of what is part of modern culture has come to us from previous cultures. The fact that we may use things from some other age does not carry any necessary spiritual baggage.

GoBahnsen
12-13-2015, 07:39 PM
Can you actually give examples of this instead of asserting it?Examples of what? Not sure what you are after. Examples of churches having Christmas trees in their sanctuaries? Or do you mean documenting the tree as being a part of pagan tradition?

One Bad Pig
12-13-2015, 07:42 PM
:hi: GB. Long time no see!

GoBahnsen
12-13-2015, 08:15 PM
:hi: GB. Long time no see!Yeah huh?:hi:

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 06:09 AM
Examples of what? Not sure what you are after. Examples of churches having Christmas trees in their sanctuaries? Or do you mean documenting the tree as being a part of pagan tradition?

You said the Christmas tree, and other things have their roots in pagan rituals, which is what I wanted examples of. Every example I've researched turned out to be false so far.

mossrose
12-14-2015, 07:02 AM
Our "modern" Christmas tree has often been attributed to Martin Luther. It is said he was out walking one night and saw the stars shining through the branches of an evergreen, and brought one home and loaded it up with candles.

Not so much pagan as "Ooh! Pretty!"

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 07:40 AM
Our "modern" Christmas tree has often been attributed to Martin Luther. It is said he was out walking one night and saw the stars shining through the branches of an evergreen, and brought one home and loaded it up with candles.

Not so much pagan as "Ooh! Pretty!"

I've heard a different version. One was that there were some pagans worshiping a tree, and a certain Saint went and cut it down, and placed an evergreen in it's place. He did this due to it pointing to God, and even the Trinity due to it's shape(being basically a triangle). :yes:

I'll have to look it up.

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 07:45 AM
You said the Christmas tree, and other things have their roots in pagan rituals, which is what I wanted examples of. Every example I've researched turned out to be false so far.Stuff like the quote below. From my scant knowledge of the subject, the debate of Christmas trees and Christianity has been a lively one over church history, especially with the Puritans.

But no surprise that we wouldn't care much about it in a day and age where Homosexuals are in the pulpit. What's a Christmas tree? And BTW, I love homosexuals. We have two in our small Presbyterian church. We love them, but they are not allowed at the Lord's table until they repent.

Anyway, I'm not gonna get worked up over the topic. If our church suddenly brought in a tree, I'd keep my mouth shut. I realize that people view them differently. Like I said, we have one in our living room and a lot of the ornaments are about Jesus.

"In Europe, Pagans in the past did not cut down whole evergreen trees, bring them into their homes and decorate them. That would have been far too destructive of nature. But during the Roman celebration of the feast of Saturnalia, Pagans did decorate their houses with clippings of evergreen shrubs. They also decorated living trees with bits of metal and replicas of their God, Bacchus.

Tertullian (circa 160 - 230), an early Christian leader and a prolific writer, complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time. 8,9,10,11"

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 07:49 AM
Our "modern" Christmas tree has often been attributed to Martin Luther. It is said he was out walking one night and saw the stars shining through the branches of an evergreen, and brought one home and loaded it up with candles.

Not so much pagan as "Ooh! Pretty!"Yeah, some attribute the tree to Germany a few hundred years ago. Again, I'm like fine, go get a Christmas tree, but because of Church history, do we really need one inside the local church?

mossrose
12-14-2015, 07:56 AM
Yeah, some attribute the tree to Germany a few hundred years ago. Again, I'm like fine, go get a Christmas tree, but because of Church history, do we really need one inside the local church?

I have one in my local church............right in my living room!

:teeth:

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 08:32 AM
Stuff like the quote below. From my scant knowledge of the subject, the debate of Christmas trees and Christianity has been a lively one over church history, especially with the Puritans.

But no surprise that we wouldn't care much about it in a day and age where Homosexuals are in the pulpit. What's a Christmas tree? And BTW, I love homosexuals. We have two in our small Presbyterian church. We love them, but they are not allowed at the Lord's table until they repent.

Anyway, I'm not gonna get worked up over the topic. If our church suddenly brought in a tree, I'd keep my mouth shut. I realize that people view them differently. Like I said, we have one in our living room and a lot of the ornaments are about Jesus.

I'm not asking for anything more than a reference for your claims. Nothing to get worked up over.

Oh, and really? Attempted well poisoning already?


"In Europe, Pagans in the past did not cut down whole evergreen trees, bring them into their homes and decorate them. That would have been far too destructive of nature. But during the Roman celebration of the feast of Saturnalia, Pagans did decorate their houses with clippings of evergreen shrubs. They also decorated living trees with bits of metal and replicas of their God, Bacchus.

Tertullian (circa 160 - 230), an early Christian leader and a prolific writer, complained that too many fellow-Christians had copied the Pagan practice of adorning their houses with lamps and with wreathes of laurel at Christmas time. 8,9,10,11"

I find the quote repeated in a lot of places, and none of them give reliable sources so far except for the on concerning Tertullian. Tertullian's argument is rather bad actually. Apparently, in his mind, if you decorate an entrance, you are therefore worshiping the "god/demon of entrances". :no:

His argument backfires too, because God ordered the Israelites to make decorations for the Tabernacle at various places. If each has a demon associated with it, then God Himself ordered the Israelites to "worship" said demons with the "tokens" associated with each.

Go to Chapter 15 of On Idolatry (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm) to see his thoughts about decorations. It just really doesn't make any sense. :shrug:

All of the sites that pop up use the argument that Jeremiah spoke against decorating trees. :doh:
I mean, seriously? The verse they use is clearly about idols being worshiped, not ordinary decorations.

I highly recommend Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths. (http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Pagan-Other-Myths-Holding-ebook/dp/B00GZ6GA84/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450109747&sr=8-1&keywords=Christmas+is+pagan+and+other+myths)

The series isn't finished yet, but the video form starts here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZ233XMLDE). It's a parody of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas". The book is much more in depth though, so is better for checking things out. The two videos so far give a decent overview though.


Yeah, some attribute the tree to Germany a few hundred years ago. Again, I'm like fine, go get a Christmas tree, but because of Church history, do we really need one inside the local church?

Well, since that history doesn't seem to be what you think it is, I see no reason to object to a Christmas tree.

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 08:57 AM
I have one in my local church............right in my living room!

:teeth:Oh, do you guys host a home church?

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 08:59 AM
I'm not asking for anything more than a reference for your claims. Nothing to get worked up over.

Oh, and really? Attempted well poisoning already?



I find the quote repeated in a lot of places, and none of them give reliable sources so far except for the on concerning Tertullian. Tertullian's argument is rather bad actually. Apparently, in his mind, if you decorate an entrance, you are therefore worshiping the "god/demon of entrances". :no:

His argument backfires too, because God ordered the Israelites to make decorations for the Tabernacle at various places. If each has a demon associated with it, then God Himself ordered the Israelites to "worship" said demons with the "tokens" associated with each.

Go to Chapter 15 of On Idolatry (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm) to see his thoughts about decorations. It just really doesn't make any sense. :shrug:

All of the sites that pop up use the argument that Jeremiah spoke against decorating trees. :doh:
I mean, seriously? The verse they use is clearly about idols being worshiped, not ordinary decorations.

I highly recommend Christmas is Pagan and Other Myths. (http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Pagan-Other-Myths-Holding-ebook/dp/B00GZ6GA84/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1450109747&sr=8-1&keywords=Christmas+is+pagan+and+other+myths)

The series isn't finished yet, but the video form starts here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAZ233XMLDE). It's a parody of "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas". The book is much more in depth though, so is better for checking things out. The two videos so far give a decent overview though.



Well, since that history doesn't seem to be what you think it is, I see no reason to object to a Christmas tree.Welcome back to Tweb GB. Where can always get your debate head slammed into a wall. Gosh my flesh misses this place. Lol. Have a nice day brother. I think you make some good points. Keep up the hard work.

Cow Poke
12-14-2015, 10:12 AM
Our "modern" Christmas tree has often been attributed to Martin Luther. It is said he was out walking one night and saw the stars shining through the branches of an evergreen, and brought one home and loaded it up with candles.

Not so much pagan as "Ooh! Pretty!"

And He wasn't worshipping the creation, but point to the Creator! :smile:

mossrose
12-14-2015, 10:17 AM
Oh, do you guys host a home church?

We are worshipping with just ourselves right now, but are certainly open to having others join us.

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 10:36 AM
Welcome back to Tweb GB. Where can always get your debate head slammed into a wall. Gosh my flesh misses this place. Lol. Have a nice day brother. I think you make some good points. Keep up the hard work.

There was no intention to "slam" you into a wall. Just trying to show that the sources for your quote aren't exactly very well argued, nor that trustworthy.

Your reference to homosexuals in the pulpit does come off as a way to poison the well regarding those who don't accept the claim that Christmas has many elements borrowed from pagan religions.

I've seen the argument made that Christmas has many pagan elements many times, what I haven't seen are good reasons to believe said arguments. I was hoping that you had something more to interact with than verses from Jeremiah, or certain similarities with pagan religions that are something more than superficial.

BTW, you didn't make the argument using Jeremiah, so the :doh: isn't aimed at you.

Cow Poke
12-14-2015, 10:41 AM
And don't forget the Old Testament verses that forbid you from chopping down a tree and bringing it in your house and decorating it! :yes:

All of the sites that pop up use the argument that Jeremiah spoke against decorating trees. :doh:

It IS about me! :bawl:



(for the record, I was being facetious, because, indeed, I have heard of people who actually advocate that position!)

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 10:50 AM
It IS about me! :bawl:



(for the record, I was being facetious, because, indeed, I have heard of people who actually advocate that position!)I hear ya. What the heck....Jeremiah was before Christ was born anyway. We are talking about Christmas.

mossrose
12-14-2015, 10:51 AM
I am SO glad you are here, GoBa!!

:flowers:

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 10:58 AM
There was no intention to "slam" you into a wall. Just trying to show that the sources for your quote aren't exactly very well argued, nor that trustworthy.

Your reference to homosexuals in the pulpit does come off as a way to poison the well regarding those who don't accept the claim that Christmas has many elements borrowed from pagan religions.

I've seen the argument made that Christmas has many pagan elements many times, what I haven't seen are good reasons to believe said arguments. I was hoping that you had something more to interact with than verses from Jeremiah, or certain similarities with pagan religions that are something more than superficial.

BTW, you didn't make the argument using Jeremiah, so the :doh: isn't aimed at you.For however I long I hang around here this time, I don't plan to do much debating. I really enjoyed my first go around back in the day when this place was popping like popcorn.

I put some hard work in. I'm not that smart, so it was hard to try to keep up with the more intelligent people in here. And a lot of times I just did not keep up.

I sure got "into the flesh" at times. Something about someone making you look like a fool without them appearing to give a rip about your feelings....well, it can draw you into a fleshly state of mind. Doesn't have to, but it happens.

And seldom do you ever get the pleasure of seeing someone actually change their position based on something you pointed out to them. It's mostly defensive posturing in here, unless things have changed. Have a good one.

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 11:20 AM
For however I long I hang around here this time, I don't plan to do much debating. I really enjoyed my first go around back in the day when this place was popping like popcorn.

I understand that, I don't do much debating myself. I tend to stick around the less serious areas. Certain people are more trouble dealing with than it's worth.


I put some hard work in. I'm not that smart, so it was hard to try to keep up with the more intelligent people in here. And a lot of times I just did not keep up.

I know what that's like, although some people can make themselves appear a lot smarter than they are. :wink:


I sure got "into the flesh" at times. Something about someone making you look like a fool without them appearing to give a rip about your feelings....well, it can draw you into a fleshly state of mind. Doesn't have to, but it happens.

None of us are perfect. A lot of people don't care as much because they don't see you like they do if they were in person. Others just use the anonymity of the internet to be bullies.


And seldom do you ever get the pleasure of seeing someone actually change their position based on something you pointed out to them. It's mostly defensive posturing in here, unless things have changed. Have a good one.

I know I've changed my mind here, and I'm pretty sure others have too. You might not see it, but it probably happens more than you think. You too btw.

I'm not trying to start a fight btw. I'm mostly interested in seeing why so many people see Christmas as pagan. For most I've met, it's either due to misinformation, misunderstanding, or rarely even "willful blindness". I was wanting to see if you fit into any of those molds. I can tell you this, I certainly don't expect the latter. I can only remember one instance of it, and he was willfully blind on just about everything. :teeth:

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 11:21 AM
It IS about me! :bawl:



(for the record, I was being facetious, because, indeed, I have heard of people who actually advocate that position!)

I knew that, and I actually remember when Mickiel brought out that argument. :argh:

Cow Poke
12-14-2015, 11:23 AM
I knew that, and I actually remember when Mickiel brought out that argument. :argh:

:yes:

Zymologist
12-14-2015, 11:39 AM
I once saw someone state that since wedding rings have pagan origins, he wouldn't wear one (though he'd been married for a long time). I thought that was strange. Maybe the rings do have a pagan origin--though I don't remember any of what he said about that--but most people, especially Christians, certainly don't wear their wedding rings with pagan intent now. I would think this could be similar with Christmas trees, though I don't know anything about their origin either.

They're both pretty much just a cultural tradition. I don't see the harm in either. :shrug:

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 11:42 AM
I understand that, I don't do much debating myself. I tend to stick around the less serious areas. Certain people are more trouble dealing with than it's worth.



I know what that's like, although some people can make themselves appear a lot smarter than they are. :wink:



None of us are perfect. A lot of people don't care as much because they don't see you like they do if they were in person. Others just use the anonymity of the internet to be bullies.



I know I've changed my mind here, and I'm pretty sure others have too. You might not see it, but it probably happens more than you think. You too btw.

I'm not trying to start a fight btw. I'm mostly interested in seeing why so many people see Christmas as pagan. For most I've met, it's either due to misinformation, misunderstanding, or rarely even "willful blindness". I was wanting to see if you fit into any of those molds. I can tell you this, I certainly don't expect the latter. I can only remember one instance of it, and he was willfully blind on just about everything. :teeth:Ok. Yeah, well sorry to disappoint, but my position is merely based on things I have picked up along the way and then simply "bought in" because it sounded legit. So, maybe I am the victim of bad info.

It does seem suspect that we are celebrating Christ's birth at a time of year when he most likely was not born in. Like requiring the subjects of Rome to travel to their own cities to file for taxes in the dead of Winter. So when I see people put out signs that Jesus is the "reason for the season"....I'm like...I don't think so. He is the reason for every season for that matter.

Christmas here in America seems to be more about family, gift giving, parties, and a bunch of fantasy stuff. Why try to shoe-horn Christ's birth in there? As if He needs or wants a birthday celebration. But if it draws one closer to Christ by celebrating His birth on December 25th, far be it from me to begrudge them that much.

mossrose
12-14-2015, 11:46 AM
Ok. Yeah, well sorry to disappoint, but my position is merely based on things I have picked up along the way and then simply "bought in" because it sounded legit. So, maybe I am the victim of bad info.

It does seem suspect that we are celebrating Christ's birth at a time of year when he most likely was not born in. Like requiring the subjects of Rome to travel to their own cities to file for taxes in the dead of Winter. So when I see people put out signs that Jesus is the "reason for the season"....I'm like...I don't think so. He is the reason for every season for that matter.

Christmas here in America seems to be more about family, gift giving, parties, and a bunch of fantasy stuff. Why try to shoe-horn Christ's birth in there? As if He needs or wants a birthday celebration. But if it draws one closer to Christ by celebrating His birth on December 25th, far be it from me to begrudge them that much.

I wrote a blog here on Tweb a LONG time ago where I addressed this very subject. I will post it in the Rolling Pin.

:smile:

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 12:00 PM
I wrote a blog here on Tweb a LONG time ago where I addressed this very subject. I will post it in the Rolling Pin.

:smile:Ok, I will look for it. thnx

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 12:08 PM
I am SO glad you are here, GoBa!!

:flowers:It's always fun to re-visit the old stomping grounds of theological debate where I cut my teeth and left without any. Lol. Thnx for the flowers. I will put them in a vase and tell my wife they are from The Chancellor. :lol:

Cerebrum123
12-14-2015, 12:37 PM
Ok. Yeah, well sorry to disappoint, but my position is merely based on things I have picked up along the way and then simply "bought in" because it sounded legit. So, maybe I am the victim of bad info.

That's happened to me before. It's no big deal.


It does seem suspect that we are celebrating Christ's birth at a time of year when he most likely was not born in. Like requiring the subjects of Rome to travel to their own cities to file for taxes in the dead of Winter. So when I see people put out signs that Jesus is the "reason for the season"....I'm like...I don't think so. He is the reason for every season for that matter.

It looks like the reason for the December 25th date is due to an early belief about how Jesus was crucified on the day he was conceived. From there it's just a matter of adding nine months onto it to get to when He was born. Of course He is the reason for every season. :yes:

From what I can tell, there are a few early traditions that put Jesus' date of birth in Winter. I mean, not 1st Century AD early, but closer to the 200-300 A.D. range.


Christmas here in America seems to be more about family, gift giving, parties, and a bunch of fantasy stuff. Why try to shoe-horn Christ's birth in there? As if He needs or wants a birthday celebration. But if it draws one closer to Christ by celebrating His birth on December 25th, far be it from me to begrudge them that much.

Well, America, as well as much of the "West" has become increasingly secular. I think most of that other stuff was added on much more recently. Although, there does seem to be something special about the Christmas season. For some it's an increased source of stress, but for others you see an attitude change that's just not there the rest of the year.

It's a silly movie, but I think one part of the "Code of the Elves" in the movie "Elf" should actually be followed, it would lead to a lot of good. That part would be "Treat Every Day Like Christmas". Now, obviously not the message that you get from "A Charlie Brown Christmas", but I think it's still a good one. I like both movies a lot. :yes:

Christianbookworm
12-14-2015, 12:46 PM
Pagans drank dihydrogen monoxide! Thus we should not drink it!

















































Of course you would then die in a few days!

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 01:09 PM
Elf was funny!

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 01:11 PM
Pagans drank dihydrogen monoxide! Thus we should not drink it!

















































Of course you would then die in a few days!Pagans ate food too. Thus we should avoid food.

Christianbookworm
12-14-2015, 01:19 PM
Pagans ate food too. Thus we should avoid food.

Do you get what I'm hinting at? Even if pagans did happen to use some of the same celebration activities in their holidays, it's the genetic fallacy to claim that Christians can't use Christmas decorations because pagans may have done a similar thing. Triumphant reclamation FTW!

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 01:32 PM
Do you get what I'm hinting at? Even if pagans did happen to use some of the same celebration activities in their holidays, it's the genetic fallacy to claim that Christians can't use Christmas decorations because pagans may have done a similar thing. Triumphant reclamation FTW!Yeah I get it. I was initially raising the issue of bringing a C tree into the local church. But I have already been shown to be without sufficient study on the subject to raise an objection.

But at some point we do have to make distinctions on various matters. I can envision 1st century pagans celebrating the solstice, as if to some sun-god or whatever the case was. And if in their celebration they did peculiar things.....it would be weird if Christians suddenly said "hey lets do that too, it looks nice." Don't you agree?

One Bad Pig
12-14-2015, 01:54 PM
But at some point we do have to make distinctions on various matters. I can envision 1st century pagans celebrating the solstice, as if to some sun-god or whatever the case was. And if in their celebration they did peculiar things.....it would be weird if Christians suddenly said "hey lets do that too, it looks nice." Don't you agree?
Romans didn't celebrate the solstice (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v) in the first century. It's possible that some barbarians did, but it wasn't normative for the culture in which the church got its start.

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

GoBahnsen
12-14-2015, 02:33 PM
Romans didn't celebrate the solstice (http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v) in the first century. It's possible that some barbarians did, but it wasn't normative for the culture in which the church got its start.

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.I grew up as a believer at Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa under Chuck Smith's teaching and guest speakers there. I apologize for any bad teachings I came to believe were true.

mossrose
12-21-2015, 06:44 AM
Here is a really good blog post that has really good thinking on this subject.

http://www.gty.org/Blog/B151221

NorrinRadd
04-01-2016, 09:53 PM
It seems you are asking whether or not Christmas type of traditions should be included along with baptism and the Lord's Supper.

To that I would say that inside of a Church there shouldn't be a Christmas tree, etc. Only because the tree and other things that often go along with celebrating Christ's birth do have their origins in pagan traditions surrounding the Winter solstice. Of course many church leaders are ignorant of this and thus bring these pagan traditions into the house of public worship. How God feels about it, I don't know.

We have a tree in our house. My wife likes having one. It does look nice. We enjoy it thru the lens of our Christian world-view.

We should also never in church mention by name the days of the week or most of the months of the year, or the planets, because they were named to honor pagan deities.

Cow Poke
04-02-2016, 06:17 AM
We should also never in church mention by name the days of the week or most of the months of the year, or the planets, because they were named to honor pagan deities.

I probably shouldn't drive my Mercury to Church, either! :smile:

Jedidiah
04-02-2016, 09:38 AM
We should also never in church mention by name the days of the week or most of the months of the year, or the planets, because they were named to honor pagan deities.

I do hope this is tongue in cheek. I wish that the Christmas tree post was also.

Christianbookworm
04-02-2016, 09:52 AM
I do hope this is tongue in cheek. I wish that the Christmas tree post was also.

Why wouldn't it be? Does he need to use sarcasm tags?

37818
04-02-2016, 10:09 AM
Why wouldn't it be? Does he need to use sarcasm tags?

Only for those who are so impaired as to not know the difference between a jest and a serious statement.

Which would be everyone on Tweb.

shunyadragon
04-02-2016, 11:23 AM
The apostles were not sola scriptura; we shouldn't be either.

I believe the apostles were likely sola scriptura, but there is no direct evidence that this was the case. Celebrating Christmas is not in scripture, but related to the celebrating a Roman holiday celbrating one or more Roman Gods over time as a Christian holiday.

One Bad Pig
04-02-2016, 11:39 AM
I believe the apostles were likely sola scriptura, but there is no direct evidence that this was the case.
You mean, the ones preaching Jesus Christ for 30 years or so before the NT was even written? :no:


Celebrating Christmas is not in scripture, but related to the celebrating a Roman holiday celbrating one or more Roman Gods over time as a Christian holiday.
This has already been covered in-thread.

Jedidiah
04-02-2016, 03:06 PM
Only for those who are so impaired as to not know the difference between a jest and a serious statement.

Which would be everyone on Tweb.

You can not always tell the difference.

NorrinRadd
04-03-2016, 01:19 PM
I do hope this is tongue in cheek. I wish that the Christmas tree post was also.

Yes, it was a joke. Legalism is ridiculous, and should be mocked at every opportunity.

Super Cow
04-12-2016, 06:25 PM
If people have traditions that aren't explicitly found or forbidden in scripture, I see no reason why they can't keep them. My wife grew up with Holiday traditions, but I didn't. I let her have her little family thing, but I refused to lie to my kids, so I tell them that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. is just pretend. If they want to have a story about the real St. Nicolaus, I'll give them a history lesson about the real one from the 4th century who from what I can tell did his best to be a righteous, generous and spiritual person. Dec. 25th is not Jesus birthday, but just a wild guess that people picked because nobody knew the real answer so they picked the time of a Roman festival. Passover was meant to be observed without chocolate rabbits and egg hunts, but if you want to chase eggs with a bunch of other kids, have fun without trying to mix the two.

Traditions are not a sin, but I think lying is.

KingsGambit
04-12-2016, 08:18 PM
Traditions are not a sin, but I think lying is.

Not only that... it doesn't look good if you teach your kids about God, as well as Santa, the tooth fairy, etc... and they gradually figure out the others don't exist.

Jedidiah
04-12-2016, 08:21 PM
My kids learned from me that Santa was just for fun. They still sort of believed, or so acted.

Sparko
04-13-2016, 05:56 AM
I don't understand. What do you mean Santa is just pretend?

Cerebrum123
04-13-2016, 06:24 AM
If people have traditions that aren't explicitly found or forbidden in scripture, I see no reason why they can't keep them. My wife grew up with Holiday traditions, but I didn't. I let her have her little family thing, but I refused to lie to my kids, so I tell them that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc. is just pretend. If they want to have a story about the real St. Nicolaus, I'll give them a history lesson about the real one from the 4th century who from what I can tell did his best to be a righteous, generous and spiritual person. Dec. 25th is not Jesus birthday, but just a wild guess that people picked because nobody knew the real answer so they picked the time of a Roman festival. Passover was meant to be observed without chocolate rabbits and egg hunts, but if you want to chase eggs with a bunch of other kids, have fun without trying to mix the two.

Traditions are not a sin, but I think lying is.

Not how it happened from what I understand. According to what I've read, it had to do with an early Christian, and I believe Jewish belief that prophets, and others approved by God died the corresponding day to when they were conceived. Just add the 9 months from the date of Jesus' death, and you get a date sometime around December 25th.

One Bad Pig
04-13-2016, 06:39 AM
Not how it happened from what I understand. According to what I've read, it had to do with an early Christian, and I believe Jewish belief that prophets, and others approved by God died the corresponding day to when they were conceived. Just add the 9 months from the date of Jesus' death, and you get a date sometime around December 25th.
Yeah, I link an extensive article up-thread that deals with this. In any case, the church has felt free to pick a convenient date if the actual one is not known (or the actual date conflicts with something more important). For example, the Transfiguration is generally acknowledged to have happened shortly before the Crucifixion; however, it is celebrated in August in order to move the celebration outside of the Lenten period.

rogue06
04-13-2016, 06:41 AM
I don't understand. What do you mean Santa is just pretend?
He said Santa was "just for fun" as in he brings toys which are fun.

Sparko
04-13-2016, 06:56 AM
He said Santa was "just for fun" as in he brings toys which are fun.well duh. But Super Cow said he was just pretend. Maybe he meant that Santa likes to pretend he is just imaginary to fool the adults?

Super Cow
04-13-2016, 09:10 AM
Not how it happened from what I understand. According to what I've read, it had to do with an early Christian, and I believe Jewish belief that prophets, and others approved by God died the corresponding day to when they were conceived. Just add the 9 months from the date of Jesus' death, and you get a date sometime around December 25th.

Tree decorating and gift-giving and (I think) mistletoe come from the Roman Saturnalia festival, which also was celebrated for 7 days on December 25th. Your point about the conception/death of prophets is real, but I think it's accuracy can be refuted scripturally at least in this case.

Faber
04-13-2016, 09:50 AM
I don't understand. What do you mean Santa is just pretend?

When I was teaching on Paul's trip to Rome, when he passed the Island of Myra, I did a diversion. That's where Saint Nicholas lived. He was born into a wealthy family, and his parents died while he was a young adult. Adhering to Jesus's statement to the rich man to give what he had to the poor and follow Him, Nicholas gave his wealth to poor people. He later became a bishop and took part in the Council of Nicea where they had to deal with the Arian heresy in AD 325. He became so angry with Arius that he got up and punched him in the face. Can you imaging getting slugged in the face by Santa Claus? I guess getting coal in his stocking wasn't enough.

Sparko
04-13-2016, 09:55 AM
When I was teaching on Paul's trip to Rome, when he passed the Island of Myra, I did a diversion. That's where Saint Nicholas lived. He was born into a wealthy family, and his parents died while he was a young adult. Adhering to Jesus's statement to the rich man to give what he had to the poor and follow Him, Nicholas gave his wealth to poor people. He later became a bishop and took part in the Council of Nicea where they had to deal with the Arian heresy in AD 325. He became so angry with Arius that he got up and punched him in the face. Can you imaging getting slugged in the face by Santa Claus? I guess getting coal in his stocking wasn't enough.Obviously you don't know the German Santa. And Krampus.

Cerebrum123
04-13-2016, 01:39 PM
Tree decorating and gift-giving and (I think) mistletoe come from the Roman Saturnalia festival, which also was celebrated for 7 days on December 25th.

From what I understand, no, no, and no. Tree decorating started very recently, and had nothing to do with paganism, gift giving is practically universal among religions[1], Saturnalia was on the 17th of December[2], and mistletoe doesn't appear to have a solid basis with Saturnalia. I know claims like these are made in a lot of popular works, but they don't go back very far. Here is a little bit from "Christmas is Pagan, And Other Myths" by James Patrick Holding.

Second, the source cited for this is usually Clement Miles’ Christmas Customs and Traditions: Their History and Significance. Miles wrote his book in 1912 and it is difficult to see why he should be accepted as an authority. His only other recorded works are as part of a set of essays on criticism, and a book titled Modern Austria: Her Racial and Social Problems. As it happens, though, on the pages cited (273), he says nothing about Saturnalia. As far as the “druidic sacrificial cult,” Miles does remark on how a Druid priest would cut a sprig of mistletoe, and that two white bulls were sacrificed once it hit a cloth it was caught in. But he also says that this ritual comes from the time of Pliny (that’s from the time of Jesus!) and he doesn’t explain any connection of this ritual to “kissing under the mistletoe.”

You can buy the book here. (http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Pagan-Other-Myths-Holding-ebook/dp/B00GZ6GA84/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460578475&sr=1-1&keywords=Christmas+is+Pagan%2C+and+Other+Myths)

The book also mentions that there are other contradictory "origins" for mistletoe. Such as it having to do with death of Balder, and his mother's subsequent promise to kiss someone under it. There isn't really evidence for this one either from what I can tell.

Christmas trees seem to first show up in the 1,500's in Germany. No connection to Saturnalia. There are several origin stories, two appear to be legends, like Martin Luther, and the one with St. Boniface.


Your point about the conception/death of prophets is real, but I think it's accuracy can be refuted scripturally at least in this case.

While I personally don't believe they were right, I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts this belief. Without much more accurate records I don't see how we could know. Maybe you're aware of something I'm not?

1. Especially on significant occasions, so this one is a rather pointless objection.
2. Some sources show Saturnalia with 7 "inclusive" days, but others show it to be 5 or less. None of them make it to December 25th though.

Rushing Jaws
04-13-2016, 03:37 PM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible. According to the Bible, celebrating Christmas is not one of the elements included in the worship of God. Worshiping God should not include the celebration of Christmas. How would you respond to this?I would ask them where in Scripture is there a Scriptural list of the names, extent and numbers of the books they rely on for this doctrine of theirs. I don't want their fallible, all-too-human, non-God-breathed, biased idea, their "tradition of men", by which they seek to bind burdens on others without lifting a finger to relieve them; I want the place in Holy Scripture that condemns as wrong the commemorating by Christians of the Nativity of Our Lord into the world He created. Their own position is unScriptural.

Super Cow
04-18-2016, 12:35 PM
From what I understand, no, no, and no. Tree decorating started very recently, and had nothing to do with paganism, gift giving is practically universal among religions[1], Saturnalia was on the 17th of December[2], and mistletoe doesn't appear to have a solid basis with Saturnalia. I know claims like these are made in a lot of popular works, but they don't go back very far. Here is a little bit from "Christmas is Pagan, And Other Myths" by James Patrick Holding.

Second, the source cited for this is usually Clement Miles’ Christmas Customs and Traditions: Their History and Significance. Miles wrote his book in 1912 and it is difficult to see why he should be accepted as an authority. His only other recorded works are as part of a set of essays on criticism, and a book titled Modern Austria: Her Racial and Social Problems. As it happens, though, on the pages cited (273), he says nothing about Saturnalia. As far as the “druidic sacrificial cult,” Miles does remark on how a Druid priest would cut a sprig of mistletoe, and that two white bulls were sacrificed once it hit a cloth it was caught in. But he also says that this ritual comes from the time of Pliny (that’s from the time of Jesus!) and he doesn’t explain any connection of this ritual to “kissing under the mistletoe.”

You can buy the book here. (http://www.amazon.com/Christmas-Pagan-Other-Myths-Holding-ebook/dp/B00GZ6GA84/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460578475&sr=1-1&keywords=Christmas+is+Pagan%2C+and+Other+Myths)

The book also mentions that there are other contradictory "origins" for mistletoe. Such as it having to do with death of Balder, and his mother's subsequent promise to kiss someone under it. There isn't really evidence for this one either from what I can tell.

Christmas trees seem to first show up in the 1,500's in Germany. No connection to Saturnalia. There are several origin stories, two appear to be legends, like Martin Luther, and the one with St. Boniface.



While I personally don't believe they were right, I haven't seen any evidence that contradicts this belief. Without much more accurate records I don't see how we could know. Maybe you're aware of something I'm not?

1. Especially on significant occasions, so this one is a rather pointless objection.
2. Some sources show Saturnalia with 7 "inclusive" days, but others show it to be 5 or less. None of them make it to December 25th though.

I'm not an expert on Roman paganism (other than some mythology that borrows from Greek myths), so I'm not sure about the traditions of Saturnalia other than the dates. You are correct that Saturnalia was observed on December 17th, and this originated probably a couple of centuries before Christ's birth, but by the time Christianity was accepted in Rome, it had changed a little bit, lasting 7 days ending on December 25th.

Regardless of the origins of the date choice, it is unlikely Jesus was born on December 25th simply because weather conditions would not be conducive to the activities described in Luke chapter 2. If Rome wanted the most accurate census registration, they would not have picked a time when weather conditions were the worst for travel. Also the shepherds would have sheltered their flocks that time of year, not watching over them during the coldest and rainiest nights of the year. I have read books and web sites that speculate on the actual date being in springtime or early fall, but from what I could determine from their logic, that is mostly conjecture. At least from a weather standpoint; however, it makes more sense.

Cerebrum123
04-18-2016, 01:03 PM
I'm not an expert on Roman paganism (other than some mythology that borrows from Greek myths), so I'm not sure about the traditions of Saturnalia other than the dates. You are correct that Saturnalia was observed on December 17th, and this originated probably a couple of centuries before Christ's birth, but by the time Christianity was accepted in Rome, it had changed a little bit, lasting 7 days ending on December 25th.

Got a source for that? From what I've seen it got shortened to three days, then brought back up to five days. None of it ended up being on December 25th.


Regardless of the origins of the date choice, it is unlikely Jesus was born on December 25th simply because weather conditions would not be conducive to the activities described in Luke chapter 2. If Rome wanted the most accurate census registration, they would not have picked a time when weather conditions were the worst for travel. Also the shepherds would have sheltered their flocks that time of year, not watching over them during the coldest and rainiest nights of the year. I have read books and web sites that speculate on the actual date being in springtime or early fall, but from what I could determine from their logic, that is mostly conjecture. At least from a weather standpoint; however, it makes more sense.

James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:

The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.

Source. (https://bible.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas)

Sounds a lot nicer than what you describe. Heavy rain may make travel more difficult in some places, but in drier climates it could make things easier due to better access to water.

Either way, once the pagan associations are shown to be false, why does the date matter? How about we focus on the why of the celebration rather than the when?

One Bad Pig
04-18-2016, 01:05 PM
I'm not an expert on Roman paganism (other than some mythology that borrows from Greek myths), so I'm not sure about the traditions of Saturnalia other than the dates. You are correct that Saturnalia was observed on December 17th, and this originated probably a couple of centuries before Christ's birth, but by the time Christianity was accepted in Rome, it had changed a little bit, lasting 7 days ending on December 25th.
I'm not sure you're reading what you respond to very closely; Cerebrum already deals with the 7 days hypothesis, and notes that it fails to reach December 25.

Cerebrum123
04-18-2016, 02:32 PM
I'm not sure you're reading what you respond to very closely; Cerebrum already deals with the 7 days hypothesis, and notes that it fails to reach December 25.

At this point I'm thinking he's so dug into his position that not much will get through.

NorrinRadd
04-19-2016, 12:57 AM
Thanks for the informative discussion and links, everyone. I am of the "There are no holy or unholy days" persuasion. I enjoy much about Christmas and the whole Holiday Season. (But less so now that I'm old and sluggish and unfavorably sensitive to dark and cold, and now that my parents have both passed and family gatherings are becoming more sparsely attended.) While I don't consider Christmas to be "holy," I appreciate the Bible themes it brings into more widespread daily consciousness, and I always enjoy seeing data useful for pushing back against infidels on the one hand and anti-Christmas legalists on the other.

Jedidiah
04-19-2016, 06:03 PM
249 days until Christmas.

Cow Poke
04-19-2016, 07:14 PM
249 days until Christmas.

You mean "A Savior is Born" Christmas? :yipee:

Jedidiah
04-19-2016, 08:23 PM
You mean "A Savior is Born" Christmas? :yipee:

That is the only Christmas I celebrate, brother.

One Bad Pig
04-20-2016, 05:56 AM
249 days until Christmas.
I'm somewhat surprised, considering the derivation of the term from the Catholic Mass, that it is still the usual term among Protestants.

Cow Poke
04-20-2016, 07:29 AM
That is the only Christmas I celebrate, brother.

Why does this not surprise me at all? :smile:

Jedidiah
04-20-2016, 09:50 AM
I'm somewhat surprised, considering the derivation of the term from the Catholic Mass, that it is still the usual term among Protestants.

Just as the so-called pagan trappings have nothing to do with a celebration of the birth of Christ, Catholic terminology has nothing to do with the celebration among protestants.

Cow Poke
11-08-2016, 03:16 PM
Hey... [ looking around ] ....

Christmas is coming :joy::yipee::joy:

TheWall
11-08-2016, 04:40 PM
Have fun.

One Bad Pig
11-08-2016, 05:14 PM
Just as the so-called pagan trappings have nothing to do with a celebration of the birth of Christ, Catholic terminology has nothing to do with the celebration among protestants.
It doesn't, I'm just mildly surprised Catholic terminology is still used.

NorrinRadd
11-09-2016, 03:35 AM
It doesn't, I'm just mildly surprised Catholic terminology is still used.

Why would they bother to create a whole new term for it?

One Bad Pig
11-09-2016, 11:00 AM
Why would they bother to create a whole new term for it?
They wouldn't have to, actually. The Spanish call it "Nativity".

themuzicman
11-17-2016, 11:44 AM
The apostles were not sola scriptura; we shouldn't be either.

1) They were Scripture writers. Unless you're claiming to be a Scripture writer, you don't get this privilege.
2) They still subjected themselves to the Word of God as they had it. Paul preached from the Tanakh.
3) Acts praises the Bereans because they searched the scriptures to see if what an apostle taught them was true. Sounds quite sola scriptura to me.

Sparko
11-17-2016, 11:53 AM
Muz!! :mm:

One Bad Pig
11-17-2016, 02:09 PM
:hi: :mm:

1) They were Scripture writers. Unless you're claiming to be a Scripture writer, you don't get this privilege.
This is an arbitrary assertion not backed by Scripture.


2) They still subjected themselves to the Word of God as they had it. Paul preached from the Tanakh.
Sure. They sought to make sure that what Paul was saying was compatible with Scripture. Paul preached from the Tanakh, but he also preached from what had been revealed to him by Christ.


3) Acts praises the Bereans because they searched the scriptures to see if what an apostle taught them was true. Sounds quite sola scriptura to me.
:no: They made sure that what Paul taught was in line with Scripture. They would not have found things like, "Jesus is the Christ, and God raised him from the dead" - which is sort of central to Paul's teaching.

KingsGambit
11-17-2016, 03:08 PM
They made sure that what Paul taught was in line with Scripture. They would not have found things like, "Jesus is the Christ, and God raised him from the dead" - which is sort of central to Paul's teaching.

Yes, this is decisive. "Sola" really does mean "only". The idea of "sola scriptura" even being applicable during the process during which the canon was being solidified is nonsensical.

themuzicman
11-18-2016, 07:12 AM
:hi: :mm:
:hi:

This is an arbitrary assertion not backed by Scripture.[/quote]

2 Peter 1


Sure. They sought to make sure that what Paul was saying was compatible with Scripture. Paul preached from the Tanakh, but he also preached from what had been revealed to him by Christ.

Thus, sola scriptura.


:no: They made sure that what Paul taught was in line with Scripture. They would not have found things like, "Jesus is the Christ, and God raised him from the dead" - which is sort of central to Paul's teaching.

Thus, sola scriptural. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean you can't preach and bear witness. It just means that the written bible is the only highest authority on matters of Christianity.

Cow Poke
11-18-2016, 08:20 AM
Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to everybody.

rogue06
11-18-2016, 08:29 AM
The apostles were not sola scriptura; we shouldn't be either.
Paul cited pagan philosophers and poets in support of his position, like at Acts 17:28 where the first half comes from the poem Cretica, written by Epimenides and the second half from Aratus' Phainomena. And in Acts 26:14, while describing his conversion experience to Festus, he quotes from Aeschylus' Agamemnon when he has God tell him that "It is hard for you to kick against the goads."

Paul quotes Epimenides again at Titus 1:12 in his condemnation of Cretans as "liars, evil brutes, [and] lazy gluttons" and Menander's comedy Thais when he states "Bad company ruins good morals" (or some times "corrupts good character"), although a few attribute it to Euripedes’ play Aiolos.

And then there is the reference in Jude (vss.14,15), which is a quote from Enoch, which is a non-canonical or apocryphal book rather than from a pagan author.

Just food for thought.

rogue06
11-18-2016, 08:38 AM
Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to everybody.

Just 36½ days to go :joy:

One Bad Pig
11-18-2016, 09:27 AM
:hi:


This is an arbitrary assertion not backed by Scripture.

2 Peter 1
You'll need to provide some actual argument. Yes, some of the apostles were scripture writers. The rest of your assertion is what is at issue.


Thus, sola scriptura.
:no: Repeating your assertion doesn't make it any more true.


Thus, sola scriptural. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean you can't preach and bear witness. It just means that the written bible is the only highest authority on matters of Christianity.
:hrm: "only highest" is not a legitimate grammatical construct; if it is the only authority (ss), it is the highest authority, but the reverse is not necessarily true. I agree that the written bible is the highest authority on matters of Christianity. I do not agree that it is the only authority, a position with precious few adherents in the first 1500 years of Christianity.

One Bad Pig
11-18-2016, 09:27 AM
Just 36½ days to go :joy:
:yes: Been in the Nativity fast since Tuesday.

Teallaura
11-19-2016, 06:49 PM
...
Thus, sola scriptural. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean you can't preach and bear witness. It just means that the written bible is the only highest authority on matters of Christianity.
Well, I can think of one Higher Authority, but He isn't back yet...








:sigh: Waiting is the hardest part...

Cow Poke
11-29-2016, 05:31 AM
Hey! It's on December 25 this year!

(unless you're gonna be piggish about it)

One Bad Pig
11-29-2016, 08:44 AM
Hey! It's on December 25 this year!

(unless you're gonna be piggish about it)
:noid:

Cow Poke
11-29-2016, 09:45 AM
Hey! It's on December 25 this year!

(unless you're gonna be piggish about it)


:noid:

My work here is done! :smug:

NorrinRadd
11-29-2016, 01:38 PM
Hey! It's on December 25 this year!

(unless you're gonna be piggish about it)

That's a nasty way to refer to the Orthodox.

Cow Poke
11-29-2016, 01:47 PM
That's a nasty way to refer to the Orthodox.

Assuming NR is playing along here, but considering the possibility he's not, lemme be perfectly clear....

I was 'poking' OBP with the "piggish" comment, but I have the highest regard for his view of Christianity, and mean no ill will toward Orthodoxy of any flavor.

One Bad Pig
11-29-2016, 01:55 PM
Assuming NR is playing along here, but considering the possibility he's not, lemme be perfectly clear....

I was 'poking' OBP with the "piggish" comment, but I have the highest regard for his view of Christianity, and mean no ill will toward Orthodoxy of any flavor.
I figgured you was just pokin' me. I'm on the New Calendar though, so I celebrate the same day you do.

Cow Poke
11-29-2016, 01:57 PM
I figgured you was just pokin' me.

Yup, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't love you. :smile:


I'm on the New Calendar though, so I celebrate the same day you do.

Linky, please?

And, a very Merry Christmas, OBP, to you and yours.

One Bad Pig
11-29-2016, 02:03 PM
Yup, and I wouldn't do it if I didn't love you. :smile:



Linky, please?
This work (http://www.goarch.org/chapel/chapel/calendar) (you might have to switch to Dec)? I'd link to my diocese, but we're mixed - some parishes are on the Old Calendar, and some are on the new (the mix is slowly shifting toward the NC, since parishes can switch from OC to NC with a 2/3 vote, but can't switch the other way, and new parishes, of which mine is one, are on the NC).


And, a very Merry Christmas, OBP, to you and yours.
Right back atcha!

Cow Poke
11-29-2016, 02:05 PM
This work (http://www.goarch.org/chapel/chapel/calendar) (you might have to switch to Dec)?

Great! And "Holy Nativity" -- I like that! :thumb:

NorrinRadd
11-29-2016, 10:23 PM
Assuming NR is playing along here, but considering the possibility he's not, lemme be perfectly clear....

I was 'poking' OBP with the "piggish" comment, but I have the highest regard for his view of Christianity, and mean no ill will toward Orthodoxy of any flavor.

I wasn't sure. I didn't know about OBP's particular understanding of Christianity.

Cow Poke
11-30-2016, 08:11 AM
I wasn't sure. I didn't know about OBP's particular understanding of Christianity.

It was a 'poke' at a dear brother, but it's not always obvious, so I thought there might be a misunderstanding. OBP used to be on the calendar that had Christmas on a different day, as he is Orthodox.

(Perhaps he'd suggest that WE were the ones who had Christmas (Holy Nativity) on a different day :smile:)

Glad we cleared that up..:thumb:

One Bad Pig
11-30-2016, 09:07 AM
It was a 'poke' at a dear brother, but it's not always obvious, so I thought there might be a misunderstanding. OBP used to be on the calendar that had Christmas on a different day, as he is Orthodox.

(Perhaps he'd suggest that WE were the ones who had Christmas (Holy Nativity) on a different day :smile:)

Glad we cleared that up..:thumb:
Technically, my church used to be on a different calendar which celebrated Holy Nativity on the same day. December 25th on the Julian calendar just now happens to fall on January 7 on the Gregorian calendar (and will until 2100, when the Julian calendar adds a leap day where the Gregorian does not, at which point it will fall on January 8th on the Gregorian calendar).

Clear as mud?

Actually, if you go WAY back, it appears that Rome and its environs initially celebrated the birth of Christ on December 25, and the East celebrated the birth of Christ/baptism of the Lord on January 6. In the 4th century, the East began to follow Rome's date for celebrating the birth of Christ, but kept the celebration of the Lord's baptism on January 6, whereas Rome began to celebrate the Lord's baptism on January 6th or thereabouts (it wanders a bit (http://catholicism.about.com/od/holydaysandholidays/p/Baptism_of_Lord.htm) these days).

Cow Poke
11-30-2016, 09:12 AM
Technically, my church used to be on a different calendar which celebrated Holy Nativity on the same day. December 25th on the Julian calendar just now happens to fall on January 7 on the Gregorian calendar (and will until 2100, when the Julian calendar adds a leap day where the Gregorian does not, at which point it will fall on January 8th on the Gregorian calendar).

Clear as mud?

Actually, if you go WAY back, it appears that Rome and its environs initially celebrated the birth of Christ on December 25, and the East celebrated the birth of Christ/baptism of the Lord on January 6. In the 4th century, the East began to follow Rome's date for celebrating the birth of Christ, but kept the celebration of the Lord's baptism on January 6, whereas Rome began to celebrate the Lord's baptism on January 6th or thereabouts (it wanders a bit (http://catholicism.about.com/od/holydaysandholidays/p/Baptism_of_Lord.htm) these days).

Interesting. There's probably an app for that!

Cow Poke
12-16-2016, 06:27 AM
By the way - Merry Christmas!

(Trump said it's OK to say that)
:outtie:

elam
12-20-2016, 04:26 PM
They wouldn't have to, actually. The Spanish call it "Nativity".In my tradition = Marist & Bridigine, so do we! And I am anglo-irish-saxon.

It is unfortunate that the prostitution of Christianity has been imposed upon us via protestantism

Jedidiah
12-20-2016, 05:34 PM
It is unfortunate that the prostitution of Christianity has been imposed upon us via protestantism

Actually the protestant reformation was in response to the prostitution of Christianity.

NorrinRadd
12-20-2016, 07:29 PM
Ok... Apparently I missed some sort of kerfuffle that led to the removal of about 30 posts.

Sparko
12-21-2016, 10:08 AM
Actually the protestant reformation was in response to the prostitution of Christianity.By the Pope himself, no less.

Cow Poke
12-21-2016, 12:43 PM
Ok... Apparently I missed some sort of kerfuffle that led to the removal of about 30 posts.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Cow Poke
12-21-2016, 06:20 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dec9Jb_Ac4

mossrose
12-21-2016, 06:27 PM
I told Kasha I want a hippopotamus for Christmas.

She said, "Ok!".

:mossy:

Bill the Cat
12-22-2016, 04:57 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dec9Jb_Ac4

She sounds like a member of the Lollipop Guild on helium...

Sparko
12-22-2016, 05:26 AM
Mossy is Canadian so it would have to be a HippopotaMOOSE.

20237

elam
12-22-2016, 06:41 AM
Actually the protestant reformation was in response to the prostitution of Christianity.That is very true, and recognised worldwide However, whilst Luther had valid objections, morons like Calvin attempted to reinvent the wheel!!!

And failed!!!!

Chrawnus
12-22-2016, 04:10 PM
Luther had valid objections

elam is now my favorite Roman Catholic Nutjob. :yes:



:outtie:

elam
12-23-2016, 09:33 AM
elam is now my favorite Roman Catholic Nutjob. :yes:Thankyou for your inclusion of me amoungst Jesus, James, Peter, Paul etc who were all considered Nutjobs by their peers!:yipee:

Cow Poke
12-23-2016, 09:35 AM
Thankyou for my inclusion amoungst Jesus. , Peter, Paul etc who were all considered Nutjobs by their peers!

Not by their peers - by their enemies.

elam
12-23-2016, 09:42 AM
Not by their peers - by their enemies.Read John 8 carefully! According to A.John it was those that believed in Jesus, who Jesus accused as his potential murders!

Cow Poke
12-23-2016, 09:44 AM
Read John 8 carefully!

I do.


According to A.John it was those that believed in Jesus, who Jesus accused as his murders!

I think you got that a little confused. But, yes, even Jesus' family thought he was nuts at one time, but you made a sweeping statement that included Paul, Peter, etc.....

elam
12-23-2016, 09:54 AM
Ieven Jesus' family thought he was nuts at one time, but you made a sweeping statement that included Paul, Peter, etc.....Read Acts 3, particularly notice verses 12 to 15.

Cow Poke
12-23-2016, 10:00 AM
Read Acts 3, particularly notice verses 12 to 15.

How bout actually making your points, rather than point to verses you THINK support what you're saying?

Cow Poke
12-23-2016, 10:19 AM
Thankyou for your inclusion of me amoungst Jesus, James, Peter, Paul etc who were all considered Nutjobs by their peers!:yipee:

Elam, I'm guessing English is not your first language, and that may explain some of the disconnect.

One Bad Pig
12-23-2016, 10:53 AM
elam is now my favorite Roman Catholic Nutjob. :yes:



:outtie:

Please don't feed him after midnight.

rogue06
12-23-2016, 11:50 AM
I do.



I think you got that a little confused. But, yes, even Jesus' family thought he was nuts at one time, but you made a sweeping statement that included Paul, Peter, etc.....
I'm reminded of a quote by Carl Sagan:


"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Cerebrum123
12-23-2016, 12:04 PM
Please don't feed him after midnight.

That's gremlins, not trolls.

Cow Poke
12-23-2016, 12:18 PM
That's gremlins, not trolls.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Cerebrum123
12-23-2016, 12:18 PM
Are they mutually exclusive?

AFAIK know yes.

Cow Poke
12-23-2016, 12:20 PM
AFAIK know yes.

We are so blessed to have a subject matter expert on this topic! :hug:

One Bad Pig
12-23-2016, 01:13 PM
That's gremlins, not trolls.
Yes, but you probably shouldn't feed trolls after midnight either.

Jedidiah
12-23-2016, 04:18 PM
How bout actually making your points, rather than point to verses you THINK support what you're saying?

Especially when they don't.

elam
12-23-2016, 05:04 PM
How bout actually making your points, rather than point to verses you THINK support what you're saying?Very interesting. You are afraid to be confronted by explicit scripture.

Of course, I accept that you would reject any statement I make, so I will continue to deal with you as Jesus would. He was very fond of quoting scripture, which irritated his opponents.

Jedidiah
12-23-2016, 07:28 PM
Very interesting. You are afraid to be confronted by explicit scripture.

Of course, I accept that you would reject any statement I make, so I will continue to deal with you as Jesus would. He was very fond of quoting scripture, which irritated his opponents.
Suggestion: Use scriptures that support your point rather than random scriptures that we will all agree on.

apostoli
12-23-2016, 10:48 PM
How bout actually making your points, rather than point to verses you THINK support what you're saying?Actually, if you pay attention, Elam points to whole chapters of scripture and not particular verses, albeit on occasion he highlights a range of verses to be examined. He and I am of the same basic fraternity and we don't always agree, but the Cow Proder is out of order at this time...

One Bad Pig
12-24-2016, 06:40 AM
Actually, if you pay attention, Elam points to whole chapters of scripture and not particular verses, albeit on occasion he highlights a range of verses to be examined. He and I am of the same basic fraternity and we don't always agree, but the Cow Proder is out of order at this time...
:hi: Paul. Long time no see!

Pointing to verses can be helpful, but an explanation of why one thinks the verses make one's point tends to be much more helpful.

Bill the Cat
12-25-2016, 02:18 PM
Very interesting. You are afraid to be confronted by explicit scripture.

Of course, I accept that you would reject any statement I make, so I will continue to deal with you as Jesus would. He was very fond of quoting scripture, which irritated his opponents.


http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

Jedidiah
12-25-2016, 05:45 PM
Actually, if you pay attention, Elam points to whole chapters of scripture and not particular verses, albeit on occasion he highlights a range of verses to be examined. He and I am of the same basic fraternity and we don't always agree, but the Cow Proder is out of order at this time...

The problems is the verses elam quotes seem to have little if any relationship to what he seems to think they are supporting. So some commentary is very much in order.

Cow Poke
12-26-2016, 09:52 AM
Very interesting. You are afraid to be confronted by explicit scripture.

You are certainly entitled to be wrong. You seem to excel at it.


Of course, I accept that you would reject any statement I make, so I will continue to deal with you as Jesus would. He was very fond of quoting scripture, which irritated his opponents.

What really irritates me is when somebody misuses scripture, then boasts about it.

Cow Poke
12-26-2016, 09:53 AM
:hi: Paul. Long time no see!

Pointing to verses can be helpful, but an explanation of why one thinks the verses make one's point tends to be much more helpful.

EGGzackly.

Bibleuser
12-12-2017, 03:32 AM
Where in the Bible does it tell us on what day Jesus was born?
BU

Cow Poke
12-12-2017, 03:48 AM
Where in the Bible does it tell us on what day Jesus was born?
BU

Only in handwritten notes. :smile:

Bibleuser
12-12-2017, 04:00 AM
Thus not in the Text of Scripture?!
BU

Bill the Cat
12-12-2017, 05:01 AM
Where in the Bible does it tell us on what day Jesus was born?
BU

It doesn't because it isn't necessary. There are some environmental clues, and some historical ones that narrow it down to either a Spring or Fall time frame, but other than that, we just picked a day and stuck with it.

Cerebrum123
12-12-2017, 05:17 AM
Where in the Bible does it tell us on what day Jesus was born?
BU

It doesn't, which is why different churches celebrate it on different days. December 25th is the most popular, and January 9th is in use by Eastern Orthodox I believe.

rogue06
12-12-2017, 05:58 AM
It doesn't, which is why different churches celebrate it on different days. December 25th is the most popular, and January 9th is in use by Eastern Orthodox I believe.
And IIRC that is a result of switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian one.

And the selecting of December 25th has nothing to do with co-opting a pagan holiday

It seems more likely that the dating was influenced by the Jewish concept that great figures lived an exact number of years (dying on the day that they were conceived). Christians at least since the second century held that Jesus was conceived on March 25 (see Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses for instance) and hence born on December 25 based upon his having died on March 25 -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan.

This also demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established c. 245 AD meaning that contrary to popular belief it appears that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around.

One Bad Pig
12-12-2017, 06:18 AM
It doesn't, which is why different churches celebrate it on different days. December 25th is the most popular, and January 9th is in use by Eastern Orthodox I believe.
Currently, those on the Old Calendar celebrate Christmas on January 7th (Dec. 25th on the Julian Calendar); it won't be until 2200 that they celebrate it on January 9th (after two more instances where the Julian calendar has a leap year but the Gregorian calendar does not).

The West seems to have started out celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25, whereas the East first celebrated Christmas along with the Baptism of Jesus on Theophany (Jan. 6). About the 4th century, the Western practice spread East, and the West began to celebrate Epiphany (the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus) on the 6th.

Bibleuser
12-12-2017, 06:39 AM
So if it not in scripture why do it as its not supported by The Bible?
Its a Man made tradition not God made, so to speak.
BU

Chrawnus
12-12-2017, 06:56 AM
So if it not in scripture why do it as its not supported by The Bible?
Its a Man made tradition not God made, so to speak.
BU

Who cares? Man-made doesn't automatically mean it's wrong or sinful.

Cerebrum123
12-12-2017, 07:16 AM
So if it not in scripture why do it as its not supported by The Bible?
Its a Man made tradition not God made, so to speak.
BU

God sent the angels to declare Jesus' birth, and the Magi went to give Jesus gifts and to worship Him.

Luke 2:8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

Matthew 2: 9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

I think that one of God's greatest acts in history deserves to be celebrated, even if we don't know the exact date.

Edit: Also, what Chrawnus said.

Bill the Cat
12-12-2017, 07:55 AM
So if it not in scripture why do it as its not supported by The Bible?
Its a Man made tradition not God made, so to speak.
BU

So is using a computer.

Bibleuser
12-12-2017, 09:15 AM
Wherein does The Bible say that for Jesus followers??
BU

NorrinRadd
12-12-2017, 09:59 AM
It doesn't because it isn't necessary. There are some environmental clues, and some historical ones that narrow it down to either a Spring or Fall time frame, but other than that, we just picked a day and stuck with it.

That part isn't true. The ancients believed that, at least for significant persons, the date and month of conception and the date and month of death were the same. So they calculated that if Jesus died in Spring, He must have been conceived in Spring, and born nine months later. The *exact* dates calculated varied by a couple of weeks or so, but Dec. 25 was the most common.

rogue06
12-12-2017, 10:18 AM
So if it not in scripture why do it as its not supported by The Bible?
Its a Man made tradition not God made, so to speak.
BU
If you want to ignore it then do so.

Faber
12-12-2017, 10:26 AM
That part isn't true. The ancients believed that, at least for significant persons, the date and month of conception and the date and month of death were the same. So they calculated that if Jesus died in Spring, He must have been conceived in Spring, and born nine months later. The *exact* dates calculated varied by a couple of weeks or so, but Dec. 25 was the most common.

That idea goes back to Hippolytus of Rome, AD 170 – 235.

It was Hippolytus's belief that, because Jesus was perfect, or because of Divine providence, His date of conception, His date of death and the creation of the world all had to occur on the same date, March 25. And nine months of gestation would bring the birth of the Savior to December 25. (Hippolytus, Eis Ton Daniel, 4.23.3. )

rogue06
12-12-2017, 10:37 AM
And IIRC that is a result of switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian one.

And the selecting of December 25th has nothing to do with co-opting a pagan holiday

It seems more likely that the dating was influenced by the Jewish concept that great figures lived an exact number of years (dying on the day that they were conceived). Christians at least since the second century held that Jesus was conceived on March 25 (see Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses for instance) and hence born on December 25 based upon his having died on March 25 -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan.

This also demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established c. 245 AD meaning that contrary to popular belief it appears that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around.
To elaborate, from something I wrote in response to some Jesus Mythers on another website a few years ago (and I might have posted here later):

A festival for Sol Invictus on Dec. 25 was only established c. 274 or 275 AD by an emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

OTOH, Christians had been marking the birth of Christ as taking place on December 25th since at least 204 AD, as the Commentary on the prophet Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 AD) attest.

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2]. Back then it was assumed that truly righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He was must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom. Because of this some scholars assumed that Christians took the date that the pagan festival of Sol Invictus took place on when in fact Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day seven decades prior to the Romans appropriated the day.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.













1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) for one listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

Sparko
12-12-2017, 12:02 PM
So if it not in scripture why do it as its not supported by The Bible?
Its a Man made tradition not God made, so to speak.
BU

You sound like a Jehovah's Witness. Are you?

We celebrate Christmas to remember Christ coming into the world to save us. We celebrate Easter to celebrate his resurrection. I think any day we celebrate Christ is a good day.

rogue06
12-12-2017, 12:03 PM
I think any day we celebrate Christ is a good day.
That ^^^

One Bad Pig
12-12-2017, 12:12 PM
To elaborate, from something I wrote in response to some Jesus Mythers on another website a few years ago (and I might have posted here later):

A festival for Sol Invictus on Dec. 25 was only established c. 274 or 275 AD by an emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

OTOH, Christians had been marking the birth of Christ as taking place on December 25th since at least 204 AD, as the Commentary on the prophet Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 AD) attest.

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2]. Back then it was assumed that truly righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He was must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom. Because of this some scholars assumed that Christians took the date that the pagan festival of Sol Invictus took place on when in fact Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day seven decades prior to the Romans appropriated the day.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.



1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) for one listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.
In the East, Christmas is the third most important feast behind Easter and Theophany. IIRC there are all of four birth commemorations on the Orthodox calendar: that of Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist, and St. Nicholas (the conceptions of Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist are also commemorated).

Jedidiah
12-12-2017, 02:21 PM
Where in the Bible does it tell us on what day Jesus was born?
BU

I do not know any Christian who believes that December 25th is the actual date of Jesus birth. What is celebrated is the fact of His coming.

Jedidiah
12-12-2017, 02:25 PM
Thus not in the Text of Scripture?!
BU

You do not know what sarcasm is do you?

Cow Poke
12-12-2017, 02:29 PM
Thus not in the Text of Scripture?!
BU

I don't know of anybody who claims Jesus was born on December 25. Sounds like you're going to be an "arguing from silence" advocate.

What's next? No pianos, cause they weren't mentioned in the Bible?

rogue06
12-12-2017, 02:46 PM
I don't know of anybody who claims Jesus was born on December 25. Sounds like you're going to be an "arguing from silence" advocate.

What's next? No pianos, cause they weren't mentioned in the Bible?
We all need to leave North and South America and Australia since none of them are mentioned in the Bible.

Sparko
12-12-2017, 02:50 PM
We all need to leave North and South America and Australia since none of them are mentioned in the Bible.
“Bible” is not mentioned in the Bible!

Raphael
12-12-2017, 03:10 PM
I don't know of anybody who claims Jesus was born on December 25. Sounds like you're going to be an "arguing from silence" advocate.

What's next? No pianos, cause they weren't mentioned in the Bible?

I've actually seen a good argument for a December 25th / January 8th date that comes from a Jewish belief that a prophet departs this world on the same day of the year that he was conceived. When Jesus crucified? Passover. Which is on overage (depending on the lunar cycles) 9 months before Christmas.

It was in an old Parchment and Pen blog can't find it now, but here is another one that argues for the date for other reasons:
http://credohouse.org/blog/on-what-date-was-christ-born

This old Biblical Archaeology Review article delves into it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091214111824/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp

Cow Poke
12-12-2017, 03:11 PM
I've actually seen a good argument for a December 25th / January 8th date that comes from a Jewish belief that a prophet departs this world on the same day of the year that he was conceived. When Jesus crucified? Passover. Which is on overage (depending on the lunar cycles) 9 months before Christmas.

It was in an old Parchment and Pen blog can't find it now, but here is another one that argues for the date for other reasons:
http://credohouse.org/blog/on-what-date-was-christ-born

This old Biblical Archaeology Review article delves into it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091214111824/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp

Agreed, I've also seen "good arguments", but I don't know of anybody who tries to make it a sticking point. Maybe that's what I should have said.

Christianbookworm
12-12-2017, 03:21 PM
And IIRC that is a result of switching from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian one.

And the selecting of December 25th has nothing to do with co-opting a pagan holiday

It seems more likely that the dating was influenced by the Jewish concept that great figures lived an exact number of years (dying on the day that they were conceived). Christians at least since the second century held that Jesus was conceived on March 25 (see Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses for instance) and hence born on December 25 based upon his having died on March 25 -- which was calculated to have coincided with 14 Nisan.

This also demonstrates that Christians were celebrating Christ's birthday on December 25 before the festival for Sol Invictus (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) on Dec. 25 was only established c. 245 AD meaning that contrary to popular belief it appears that festival was actually later syncretized with Christmas rather than the other way around.

But even if He were conceived on March 25, He still could have been born any time from mid December to early January.

rogue06
12-12-2017, 03:29 PM
I've actually seen a good argument for a December 25th / January 8th date that comes from a Jewish belief that a prophet departs this world on the same day of the year that he was conceived. When Jesus crucified? Passover. Which is on overage (depending on the lunar cycles) 9 months before Christmas.

It was in an old Parchment and Pen blog can't find it now, but here is another one that argues for the date for other reasons:
http://credohouse.org/blog/on-what-date-was-christ-born

This old Biblical Archaeology Review article delves into it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091214111824/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp
Or from a few hours ago...



To elaborate, from something I wrote in response to some Jesus Mythers on another website a few years ago (and I might have posted here later):

A festival for Sol Invictus on Dec. 25 was only established c. 274 or 275 AD by an emperor who was not very friendly toward Christianity. Prior to that the traditional festival days varied throughout the Roman Empire and included August 8th and/or the 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th -- but never December 25th.

OTOH, Christians had been marking the birth of Christ as taking place on December 25th since at least 204 AD, as the Commentary on the prophet Daniel by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 AD) attest.

The reason that December 25th was picked for Christ's birth was because the assumed date for His death (at least in the Western part of the Empire[1]), since at least 200 AD, was March 25th[2]. Back then it was assumed that truly righteous men lived a whole number of years, without fractions meaning that they died on the same day they were conceived on (see the Talmud for examples). In short, if He died on March 25th He was must have also been conceived on March 25th. Add 9 months to the date of conception and you arrive at December 25th as the date of birth.

The confusion arises over the fact that the earliest Christians weren't really into celebrating the birth of Christ (they were far more interested in His death)[3] and Christmas celebrations really didn't get started in earnest until 379 or 380 at first in Constantinople and then started taking off in 386 after a sermon given by John Chrysostom. Because of this some scholars assumed that Christians took the date that the pagan festival of Sol Invictus took place on when in fact Christians had figured that Christmas took place on that day seven decades prior to the Romans appropriated the day.

Another fact to consider is that the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the very earliest celebrations that we have records for (c. 250–300) come during a time when the persecuted Christian minority were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character but were taking great pains to distinguish themself from them. That practice didn't begin to change until after Constantine converted to Christianity.

IOW, December 25th as the date of Christ’s birth doesn't owe anything whatsoever to pagan influences but it arose entirely from the efforts of early Latin Christians to determine the historical date of Christ’s death.













1. In some parts of the East, especially in Asia Minor and in Egypt, they concluded that it was April 6th with the discrepancy being largely due to the difficulties of trying to translate an unfamiliar lunar calendar into a solar calendar.

2. Sextus Julius Africanus (c.160 – c.240) for one listed March 25th as the day of the conception of Jesus.

3. Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) actually mocked various Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as a "pagan" practice.

Cow Poke
12-12-2017, 03:30 PM
I've actually seen a good argument for a December 25th / January 8th date that comes from a Jewish belief that a prophet departs this world on the same day of the year that he was conceived. When Jesus crucified? Passover. Which is on overage (depending on the lunar cycles) 9 months before Christmas.

It was in an old Parchment and Pen blog can't find it now, but here is another one that argues for the date for other reasons:
http://credohouse.org/blog/on-what-date-was-christ-born

This old Biblical Archaeology Review article delves into it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20091214111824/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp

It seems to me I remember Rogue going on about something like that.



:outtie:

Raphael
12-12-2017, 06:00 PM
Or from a few hours ago...


But I hadn't had my morning coffee yet when you post it, so it is irrelevant :rasberry:

The Remonstrant
12-16-2017, 05:25 PM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible. According to the Bible, celebrating Christmas is not one of the elements included in the worship of God. Worshiping God should not include the celebration of Christmas. How would you respond to this?

The celebration of Christmas is a matter of liberty for believers. I do not believe that Christians are required to celebrate or observe any specific holy days in the era of the New Covenant. You may celebrate or refrain. (In any case, worship of God is never to be confined to a specific day or season.)

Bibleuser
12-20-2017, 04:12 AM
Many Christians believe that the only elements that should be included in the worship of God are the elements that are explicitly commanded by the Bible. According to the Bible, celebrating Christmas is not one of the elements included in the worship of God. Worshiping God should not include the celebration of Christmas. How would you respond to this?

It depends which God a person worships.

As it is not of The Bible and has been grafted of from pagan Sun worship via the Solstice and Saturnalia etc., and one claims to be Christian then no.

If one worships nature or the Sun god Sol, or old father time Saturn then yes in one wants to.
BU

Sparko
12-20-2017, 05:02 AM
Since you are a Jehovah's Witness Bibleuser, it may interest you to know that Russell and the other Jehovah's Witnesses used to celebrate Christmas.

http://truth1.org/images/russell/russel11.jpg

https://www.jwfacts.com/images/christmas-way-to-paradise-van-amburgh-p30-photo.jpeg

http://www.e-prophetic.com/wp-content/uploads/wtc.png

Cerebrum123
12-20-2017, 06:15 AM
It depends which God a person worships.

As it is not of The Bible and has been grafted of from pagan Sun worship via the Solstice and Saturnalia etc., and one claims to be Christian then no.

If one worships nature or the Sun god Sol, or old father time Saturn then yes in one wants to.
BU

Good thing Christmas has nothing to do with either Saturnalia, or Sol Invictus then.

Bibleuser
12-20-2017, 09:09 AM
Since you are a Jehovah's Witness Bibleuser, it may interest you to know that Russell and the other Jehovah's Witnesses used to celebrate Christmas.

http://truth1.org/images/russell/russel11.jpg

https://www.jwfacts.com/images/christmas-way-to-paradise-van-amburgh-p30-photo.jpeg

http://www.e-prophetic.com/wp-content/uploads/wtc.pnghttp://www.theologyweb.com/campus/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=500689
]

You are so behind the times!!!

That stopped many years ago when it was shown to be pagan.

Please get up to-date.

You know better than that.

We change when things are not in harmony with scripture as you have just proved.
BU

Cow Poke
12-20-2017, 09:11 AM
]

You are so behind the times!!!

That stopped many years ago when it was shown to be pagan.

Please get up to-date.

You know better than that.

We change when things are not in harmony with scripture as you have just proved.
BU

So, like the Mormons, your guy got a lot of stuff wrong right off the bat?

Bibleuser
12-20-2017, 09:12 AM
Good thing Christmas has nothing to do with either Saturnalia, or Sol Invictus then.

The Early Church by Henry Chadwick p.126-7
"Clement of Alexander (c. A.D. 200) speaks of Christ driving his chariot across the sky like the Sun-god. A tomb mosaic recently found at Rome, probably made in the fourth century, depicts Christ as the Sun-god mounting the heavens with his chariot. Tertullian says that many pagans imagined the Christians worshipped the sun because the met on Sundays and prayed towards the East. Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of 25th December, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by the mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St Peter's before turning their back on it to worship inside the westward-facing basilica."


BU

Faber
12-20-2017, 09:13 AM
I do not know any Christian who believes that December 25th is the actual date of Jesus birth. What is celebrated is the fact of His coming.

Getting him confused with Humphrey Bogart.

Sparko
12-20-2017, 09:19 AM
]

You are so behind the times!!!

That stopped many years ago when it was shown to be pagan.

Please get up to-date.

You know better than that.

We change when things are not in harmony with scripture as you have just proved.
BU

So you are saying that Charles Russel and the people who started and ran the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower were wrong?

What makes you think they are not wrong now?

They even used to use CROSSES!!!

25575

and notice the pagan Pyramid! Charles Russel, The founder of your religion was very pagan. as were all of the other early members of the Watchtower Society.

And they were wrong every time they predicted Armageddon and the End of Days, which was many times.

25577

25576

So you think you can trust a group that is so consistently wrong about it's own doctrines and prophesies in the past? They have a horrible record. False prophets are not to be followed but to be put to death.

Cow Poke
12-20-2017, 09:34 AM
So you think you can trust a group that is so consistently wrong about it's own doctrines and prophesies in the past? They have a horrible record. False prophets are not to be followed but to be put to death.

I've never really thought about it before, but I wonder if Russell was influenced at all by Joseph Smith, and decided to start his own little pack.

According to Wiki:
Jehovah's Witnesses had its origins in the Bible Student movement, which developed in the United States in the 1870s among followers of Christian Restorationist minister Charles Taze Russell.

That "Christian Restorationist" would define who Joseph Smith thought he was.

(Interestingly enough, I found a site pretty quickly that attempts to establish a close relation between Smith and Russell - but it seems to be one of those illuminati conspiracy sites, so I'll keep looking)

One Bad Pig
12-20-2017, 09:39 AM
The Early Church by Henry Chadwick p.126-7
"Clement of Alexander (c. A.D. 200) speaks of Christ driving his chariot across the sky like the Sun-god. A tomb mosaic recently found at Rome, probably made in the fourth century, depicts Christ as the Sun-god mounting the heavens with his chariot. Tertullian says that many pagans imagined the Christians worshipped the sun because the met on Sundays and prayed towards the East. Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of 25th December, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by the mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St Peter's before turning their back on it to worship inside the westward-facing basilica."

BU
Chadwick appears to have been underinformed, because there is evidence that Christmas was celebrated before the fourth century in the West (if you'd bothered reading the thread, you'd know that). Given your blunder at the beginning of the quote ("Clement of Alexander"), it is obvious that you're uncritically copying it from somewhere else.

One Bad Pig
12-20-2017, 09:41 AM
I've never really thought about it before, but I wonder if Russell was influenced at all by Joseph Smith, and decided to start his own little pack.

According to Wiki:
Jehovah's Witnesses had its origins in the Bible Student movement, which developed in the United States in the 1870s among followers of Christian Restorationist minister Charles Taze Russell.

That "Christian Restorationist" would define who Joseph Smith thought he was.

(Interestingly enough, I found a site pretty quickly that attempts to establish a close relation between Smith and Russell - but it seems to be one of those illuminati conspiracy sites, so I'll keep looking)
IIRC the Campbellites were, like Smith, a product of the "Second Great Awakening".

Cerebrum123
12-20-2017, 02:32 PM
The Early Church by Henry Chadwick p.126-7
"Clement of Alexander (c. A.D. 200) speaks of Christ driving his chariot across the sky like the Sun-god. A tomb mosaic recently found at Rome, probably made in the fourth century, depicts Christ as the Sun-god mounting the heavens with his chariot. Tertullian says that many pagans imagined the Christians worshipped the sun because the met on Sundays and prayed towards the East. Moreover, early in the fourth century there begins in the West (where first and by whom is not known) the celebration of 25th December, the birthday of the Sun-god at the winter solstice, as the date the nativity of Christ. How easy it was for Christianity and solar religion to become entangled at the popular level is strikingly illustrated by the mid-fifth century sermon of Pope Leo the Great, rebuking his over-cautious flock for paying reverence to the Sun on the steps of St Peter's before turning their back on it to worship inside the westward-facing basilica."


BU

Yeah, not a very good case made there. Chariots, as well as imagery associated with the sun are often used in the Bible. In Revelation Jesus is described as follows.

Revelation 1:14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

In Psalms God is said to use clouds as chariots, and to use light as a garment.

Psalm 104:2-4New International Version (NIV)
2 The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
4 He makes winds his messengers,[a]
flames of fire his servants.

Which "sun god" was supposedly born on December 25th? This guy doesn't give any references, or if he does in the work you haven't given them to us.

If our record of Hippolytus is correct, then December 25th was already in use by Christians before Sol Invictus. Saturnalia wasn't celebrated on December 25th at all. If there is any borrowing, it is in the opposite direction.

So, how about December 25th? We may have the earliest reference to December 25th in the work of an author named Hippolytus, who lived from around 170 to 236 AD. He wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel wherein he says:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the calends of January, the 4th day of the week Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.

You might check this book out, it has a lot of interesting information. You should also read the whole thread here, as it has a lot of information, and I'd rather not have to retype a lot of the information.

Bibleuser
12-20-2017, 05:12 PM
So you are saying that Charles Russel and the people who started and ran the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower were wrong?

What makes you think they are not wrong now?

They even used to use CROSSES!!!

25575

and notice the pagan Pyramid! Charles Russel, The founder of your religion was very pagan. as were all of the other early members of the Watchtower Society.

And they were wrong every time they predicted Armageddon and the End of Days, which was many times.

25577

25576

So you think you can trust a group that is so consistently wrong about it's own doctrines and prophesies in the past? They have a horrible record. False prophets are not to be followed but to be put to death.

All now junked as you full well know.
You seem to be going prehistoric!
BU

Bibleuser
12-20-2017, 05:19 PM
Chadwick appears to have been underinformed, because there is evidence that Christmas was celebrated before the fourth century in the West (if you'd bothered reading the thread, you'd know that). Given your blunder at the beginning of the quote ("Clement of Alexander"), it is obvious that you're uncritically copying it from somewhere else.

Just one of many ideas but have a common thred, it pagan in origin:-

Baker's Dictionary of Theology p.117
"Christmas. The EARLY Christians DID NOT OBSERVE THE FESTIVAL OF Christ's BIRTH, TO WHICH THEY DID NOT ATTACH THE IMPORTANCE ASCRIBED TO HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION . in THE East , AND LATER west , Christ's BIRTHDAY was observed on January 6th in connection was with his baptism, a day on which the pagan world celebrated the feast of Dionysus, associated with the lengthening of days. The night of January 5th-6th was devoted to the feast of Christ's birth and the day of January 6th to his baptism. A fourth century papyrus contains the oldest Christmas liturgy in existence. The nativity festival was separated from the early Christian Epiphany feast and given its own day, December 25th, between the years 325 and 354. In Rome, December 25th is attested as a day of Christ's birth in 366. It was introduced perhaps by Constantine the Great who evidently chose the day because of the popular pagan feast of the sun. Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom popularised the new festival in Constantinpole. But opposition to the new feast was stubborn throughout the East, especially in Syria (Antioch). Egypt did not receive it till 431, Armenia never."

Lots along this line.
BU

Cow Poke
12-20-2017, 05:34 PM
Just one of many ideas but have a common thred, it pagan in origin:-

Baker's Dictionary of Theology p.117
"Christmas. The EARLY Christians DID NOT OBSERVE THE FESTIVAL OF Christ's BIRTH, TO WHICH THEY DID NOT ATTACH THE IMPORTANCE ASCRIBED TO HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION . in THE East , AND LATER west , Christ's BIRTHDAY was observed on January 6th in connection was with his baptism, a day on which the pagan world celebrated the feast of Dionysus, associated with the lengthening of days. The night of January 5th-6th was devoted to the feast of Christ's birth and the day of January 6th to his baptism. A fourth century papyrus contains the oldest Christmas liturgy in existence. The nativity festival was separated from the early Christian Epiphany feast and given its own day, December 25th, between the years 325 and 354. In Rome, December 25th is attested as a day of Christ's birth in 366. It was introduced perhaps by Constantine the Great who evidently chose the day because of the popular pagan feast of the sun. Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom popularised the new festival in Constantinpole. But opposition to the new feast was stubborn throughout the East, especially in Syria (Antioch). Egypt did not receive it till 431, Armenia never."

Lots along this line.
BU

Merry Christmas

One Bad Pig
12-20-2017, 06:40 PM
Oh, look, another quote uncritically copied from elsewhere (http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T5DV2C4H4E8SRH9CN/p17), horrible formatting and all. :duh:

Just one of many ideas but have a common thred, it pagan in origin:-

Baker's Dictionary of Theology p.117
"Christmas. The EARLY Christians DID NOT OBSERVE THE FESTIVAL OF Christ's BIRTH, TO WHICH THEY DID NOT ATTACH THE IMPORTANCE ASCRIBED TO HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION . in THE East , AND LATER west , Christ's BIRTHDAY was observed on January 6th in connection was with his baptism, a day on which the pagan world celebrated the feast of Dionysus, associated with the lengthening of days. The night of January 5th-6th was devoted to the feast of Christ's birth and the day of January 6th to his baptism. A fourth century papyrus contains the oldest Christmas liturgy in existence. The nativity festival was separated from the early Christian Epiphany feast and given its own day, December 25th, between the years 325 and 354. In Rome, December 25th is attested as a day of Christ's birth in 366. It was introduced perhaps by Constantine the Great who evidently chose the day because of the popular pagan feast of the sun. Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom popularised the new festival in Constantinpole. But opposition to the new feast was stubborn throughout the East, especially in Syria (Antioch). Egypt did not receive it till 431, Armenia never."

Lots along this line.
BU
I see you still haven't bothered reading this thread, which well attests to evidence which invalidates the Western starting points ascribed here. Which edition of Baker's Dictionary of Theology is this? When was it published? Have you checked to see if your source correctly transcribed the entry? Have you checked to see if more recent editions have an updated entry? Of course not - you just saw something that supported your viewpoint and hoped it wouldn't be challenged.

One Bad Pig
12-20-2017, 06:43 PM
All now junked as you full well know.
You seem to be going prehistoric!
BU
"Yeah, we were wrong before, but we're better now. Please ignore all the stuff we used to say."

What a resounding vote of confidence!

Cow Poke
12-20-2017, 06:45 PM
"Yeah, we were wrong before, but we're better now. Please ignore all the stuff we used to say."

What a resounding vote of confidence!

Kinda like Joseph Smith! "Hey, you guys got religion all wrong, God revealed it's THIS way... um.. well, hold that thought....."

Sparko
12-21-2017, 06:07 AM
All now junked as you full well know.
You seem to be going prehistoric!
BU

Junked?

Your entire religion is based on this junk. A house built on sand. The founders and basic principals and doctrines that formed the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses are all wrong and "junked" now. So why do you think what you believe is correct? Even your bible translation, the NWT was written by Russell who knew absolutely nothing about Greek or Hebrew. It is the worst translation ever made! And you still use it!

Your argument so far is that we should not celebrate Christmas because it is based on pagan beliefs. Yet as I showed you, your ENTIRE religion and organization is based on pagan beliefs. If Charles Russell and the Watchtower were pagans then what does that make YOU?

Cow Poke
12-21-2017, 06:21 AM
Junked?

Your entire religion is based on this junk. A house built on sand. The founders and basic principals and doctrines that formed the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses are all wrong and "junked" now. So why do you think what you believe is correct? Even your bible translation, the NWT was written by Russell who knew absolutely nothing about Greek or Hebrew. It is the worst translation ever made! And you still use it!

Of the seven "translators" - all members of the same cult - who worked on "The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures", only Frederick Franz appears to have had any actual schooling in the original languages - 2 hours of Bible Greek and 21 hours of Classical Greek. He was the resident subject matter expert.

Franz claimed to have studied under Professor Arthur Kensella, who, lacking a PhD, was an "instructor", not a professor, at the University of Cincinnati.

I don't think there's any evidence, though, that he was working from gold plates. :smile:

tabibito
12-21-2017, 06:41 AM
Yeah, not a very good case made there. Chariots, as well as imagery associated with the sun are often used in the Bible. In Revelation Jesus is described as follows.

Revelation 1:14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

In Psalms God is said to use clouds as chariots, and to use light as a garment.

Psalm 104:2-4New International Version (NIV)
2 The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment;
he stretches out the heavens like a tent
3 and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters.
He makes the clouds his chariot
and rides on the wings of the wind.
4 He makes winds his messengers,[a]
flames of fire his servants.

Which "sun god" was supposedly born on December 25th? This guy doesn't give any references, or if he does in the work you haven't given them to us.

If our record of Hippolytus is correct, then December 25th was already in use by Christians before Sol Invictus. Saturnalia wasn't celebrated on December 25th at all. If there is any borrowing, it is in the opposite direction.

So, how about December 25th? We may have the earliest reference to December 25th in the work of an author named Hippolytus, who lived from around 170 to 236 AD. He wrote a commentary on the book of Daniel wherein he says:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the calends of January, the 4th day of the week Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years.

You might check this book out, it has a lot of interesting information. You should also read the whole thread here, as it has a lot of information, and I'd rather not have to retype a lot of the information.

Yup:
In AD 219, not long after Elagabalus arrived from Syria, where he had been the hereditary priest of the sun god Elagabal in Emesa, Sol Invictus (the Invincible or Unconquerable Sun) was introduced to Rome as its principal deity. Elagabalus enlarged the Temple of Jupiter Victor on the Palatine and rededicated it in AD 221 as the Elagabalium (Herodian, Roman History, V.5.8), where the rites of Jews and Christians were to be transferred "in order that the priesthood of Elagabalus might include the mysteries of every form of worship" (Historia Augusta, III.4). http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/invictus.html

As for Saturnalia: the date was Dec 17 until Julius Caesar adjusted the calendar, adding two days to December. The date of Saturnalia was then either on the 17th (calculating from the beginning of December) or the 19th (preserving the number of days to the end of December.) The confusion resulted in a three day festival, which soon extended to a full week, finishing on the 23rd December.

As for the estimations of Jesus birthday being December 25th (a later Western change to the original (Eastern) date of January 6) - one factor (of a number) in that calculation was the estimated date of the crucifixion - that estimate being March 25th. It was believed that a holy man of God would live an exact number of years. The calculation then set the day of birth as 3 months earlier than the date of death. Conceived March 25, Born Dec 25, Died March 25. (a point to remember when someone claims that early Christians did not count human life to begin with conception.)


The early celebrations of Christmas reflected Jewish practices of Hanukkah, which is celebrated around the same general time frame - and is a movable feast against the solar calendar.

Sparko
12-21-2017, 07:33 AM
BU,

Paul pretty much said people like you were wrong in trying to judge others by what festivals or holidays they celebrated.

From your own NWT:

Colossians 2
16 Therefore, do not let anyone judge you about what you eat and drink+ or about the observance of a festival or of the new moon+ or of a sabbath.+ 17 Those things are a shadow of the things to come,+ but the reality belongs to the Christ.+ 18 Let no man deprive you of the prize+ who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on”* the things he has seen. He is actually puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, 19 and he is not holding fast to the head,+ to the one through whom the whole body is supplied and harmoniously joined together by means of its joints and ligaments and made to grow with the growth that is from God.+

ouch.

Jedidiah
12-21-2017, 12:44 PM
Junked?

Your entire religion is based on this junk. A house built on sand. The founders and basic principals and doctrines that formed the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses are all wrong and "junked" now. So why do you think what you believe is correct? Even your bible translation, the NWT was written by Russell who knew absolutely nothing about Greek or Hebrew. It is the worst translation ever made! And you still use it!

Your argument so far is that we should not celebrate Christmas because it is based on pagan beliefs. Yet as I showed you, your ENTIRE religion and organization is based on pagan beliefs. If Charles Russell and the Watchtower were pagans then what does that make YOU?

They have a new updated translation now. It is still a poor one.

Cow Poke
12-21-2017, 12:47 PM
They have a new updated translation now. It is still a poor one.

Same with the Mormons. They had to get rid of "White and Delightsome (http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_whiteanddelightsome.html)".

Rushing Jaws
12-22-2017, 01:47 AM
I hear ya. What the heck....Jeremiah was before Christ was born anyway. We are talking about Christmas.According to A. A. Hoekema, the JWs take Jer. 10.2-5 as denouncing Christmas trees. Taken with verses 1 and 2, those 5 verses make much better sense as a denunciation of two aspects of Babylonian religion.

tabibito
12-22-2017, 02:20 AM
According to A. A. Hoekema, the JWs take Jer. 10.2-5 as denouncing Christmas trees. Taken with verses 1 and 2, those 5 verses make much better sense as a denunciation of two aspects of Babylonian religion.

:eh: That's about idols made of wood.

Since when did Christians worship Christmas Trees?

Sparko
12-22-2017, 05:04 AM
:eh: That's about idols made of wood.

Since when did Christians worship Christmas Trees?

JW's are weird. They will claim just about anything is "Pagan Worship" - Christmas, Christmas trees, giving presents, birthdays, etc. EXCEPT when the bible clearly says that people worshiped Jesus. Then, no! that is not worship, that is just obeisance, bowing down in honor. :rofl:

The Remonstrant
12-22-2017, 05:10 AM
Bibleuser, regardless of whether you refrain from celebrating a specific day, the more pertinent issue is the underlying faulty theology you have adopted from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. You have been lied to regarding who Jesus Christ is.

Bibleuser
12-22-2017, 10:08 AM
Bibleuser, regardless of whether you refrain from celebrating a specific day, the more pertinent issue is the underlying faulty theology you have adopted from the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. You have been lied to regarding who Jesus Christ is.

Luke 22:14-19
So when the hour came, he reclined at the table along with the apostles. 15 And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” 17 And accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”

this is the only event that Jesus said to do for him in The Bible!!
BU

Bibleuser
12-22-2017, 10:11 AM
Junked?

Your entire religion is based on this junk. A house built on sand. The founders and basic principals and doctrines that formed the Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses are all wrong and "junked" now. So why do you think what you believe is correct? Even your bible translation, the NWT was written by Russell who knew absolutely nothing about Greek or Hebrew. It is the worst translation ever made! And you still use it!

Your argument so far is that we should not celebrate Christmas because it is based on pagan beliefs. Yet as I showed you, your ENTIRE religion and organization is based on pagan beliefs. If Charles Russell and the Watchtower were pagans then what does that make YOU?

As I said you are out of date,
BU

Cow Poke
12-22-2017, 10:12 AM
Luke 22:14-19
So when the hour came, he reclined at the table along with the apostles. 15 And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” 17 And accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”

this is the only event that Jesus said to do for him in The Bible!!
BU

Merry Christmas to you, too, Uncle Scrooge.

Sparko
12-22-2017, 10:13 AM
Luke 22:14-19
So when the hour came, he reclined at the table along with the apostles. 15 And he said to them: “I have greatly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.” 17 And accepting a cup, he gave thanks and said: “Take this and pass it from one to the other among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, from now on, I will not drink again from the product of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 Also, he took a loaf, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them, saying: “This means my body, which is to be given in your behalf. Keep doing this in remembrance of me.”

this is the only event that Jesus said to do for him in The Bible!!
BU

And you JWs won't even do that! You just pass the cup and bread down the row once a year and won't partake of it because you don't think you are one of 144,000.

That is really sad (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/lords-supper/).

Cow Poke
12-22-2017, 10:15 AM
As I said you are out of date,
BU

And your religion's founder was out of his mind.

Bibleuser
12-22-2017, 10:29 AM
Insults normanly show lack of reason and logic and substance in one points on making an argument.
Sad.
BU

Sparko
12-22-2017, 10:35 AM
Insults normanly show lack of reason and logic and substance in one points on making an argument.
Sad.
BU
When was the last time you ate the wine and bread in remembrance of Jesus as he commanded?

Cow Poke
12-22-2017, 10:38 AM
Insults normanly show lack of reason and logic and substance in one points on making an argument.
Sad.
BU

You totally ignored the proof that your denomination was founded on total ignorance. That's not an insult, it's a provable fact.

Now, if I had said, "You totally ignored the proof that your denomination was founded on total ignorance, you moron". THAT would be an insult. :wink:

Cerebrum123
12-22-2017, 12:30 PM
Insults normanly show lack of reason and logic and substance in one points on making an argument.
Sad.
BU

They can also work effectively alongside an argument. See many of Jesus' responses to the Pharisees. He was pretty harsh with them, but He also showed far more reason than them.

The Remonstrant
12-24-2017, 03:21 AM
And you JWs won't even do that! You just pass the cup and bread down the row once a year and won't partake of it because you don't think you are one of 144,000.

That is really sad (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/lords-supper/).

Thank you for sparing me the time in writing this also.

Teallaura
12-24-2017, 11:43 AM
And you JWs won't even do that! You just pass the cup and bread down the row once a year and won't partake of it because you don't think you are one of 144,000.

That is really sad (https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/lords-supper/).
Okay, dumb question - what DO they think they are?

Jedidiah
12-24-2017, 01:07 PM
Okay, dumb question - what DO they think they are?

The 144,000 will supposedly be in "heaven" the remaining "faithful" will be relegated to the New Earth.

Cow Poke
12-24-2017, 06:16 PM
The 144,000 will supposedly be in "heaven" the remaining "faithful" will be relegated to the New Earth.

At least if they were Mormons the could be gods of their very own worlds.

Sparko
12-27-2017, 06:02 AM
The 144,000 will supposedly be in "heaven" the remaining "faithful" will be relegated to the New Earth.

Yep, the 144K rule in heaven with God, while the rest of humanity is resurrected and lives on the New Earth in "Paradise" for 1000 years, until Satan is released to tempt mankind again. After that those who are not faithful on earth will be destroyed. The 144K are from all people from the time of Christ to the present. So you can imagine there are not many left. They used to teach that the last of the 144K were born in 1914 which was what Russell taught was the "spiritual Armageddon" when Christ began his reign in the Kingdom and that the end on earth would happen before that generation perished. They have since dropped that teaching since most of that generation has already died and nothing has happened yet. (they preached various Armageddon times in the past which kept failing.)

Teallaura
12-27-2017, 03:44 PM
The 144,000 will supposedly be in "heaven" the remaining "faithful" will be relegated to the New Earth.
O....kay, and that means not taking Communion how, exactly? :huh:

Jedidiah
12-27-2017, 04:46 PM
O....kay, and that means not taking Communion how, exactly? :huh:

You will have to ask them. My guess is they think only the 144,000 are entitled to take communion, but I do not know. This is an area I have never investigated. I have looked at the JWs to a degree since my parents were/are JW.

Sparko
12-28-2017, 05:41 AM
You will have to ask them. My guess is they think only the 144,000 are entitled to take communion, but I do not know. This is an area I have never investigated. I have looked at the JWs to a degree since my parents were/are JW.

Basically only the 144K are "saved" by Jesus' sacrifice. The rest have to earn salvation by following the rules, being good Christians and even after that, they have to pass a test 1000 years after Jesus returns. Basically everyone who is not wicked is resurrected, and everyone lives under Jesus' and the 144K's rule on earth. Then 1000 years later the devil is released to tempt mankind again. Those who pass the test get to live forever on New Earth in Paradise. The rest are destroyed.

https://i-disp.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/tjw.png