Why I Think Christmas is Not Biblical (Please read OP before posting).

[prodromos]

Do not imitate the heathen's ways or men's traditions.

Colossians 2:8 says,
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Is Christmas something in the Bible or is it more like a tradition of men and or after the rudiments of the world? Think about it. Should we let a world recognized holiday tell us how we are to worship our Lord? Or do we let the Bible alone tell us how we are to worship our Lord?

"Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Then you will learn to know God's will for you, which is good and pleasing and perfect." (Romans 12:2) (NLT).

"...Learn not the way of the heathen,..." (Jeremiah 10:2).

But it has Jesus in the holiday and we focus on Jesus, so it is okay, right?

It is written,

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:4).

Paul is saying to bear with them that preach another Jesus. He does not say to embrace another Jesus in whom they have not preached.

The Jesus that is being preached in Christmas is a baby Jesus and how we must give honor to Him by exchanging gifts (sometimes going into debt) around a Christmas tree.

In fact, 9 out of the 11 times the word "tradition" appears in the King James Bible, it is in reference to the traditions of men that were bad and not good (See this link here at BlueLetterBible). In fact, Jesus says that men were transgressing God's commands by their man made traditions. Christmas is a human tradition of man and it is nowhere to be found within the Scriptures; And we are told not to imitate the way of the heathen or the customs of the world. Christmas is very much a custom or celebration of the world.

Enjoy your echo chamber.

 

[Strong in Him]

Some try to point out how the names of the days of the week are pagan in origin and so this means we can celebrate Christ-mass.
No. The days of the week are simply names of the week and there is no pagan rituals or unbiblical practices done as a part of the existence of these days.

No, but you were talking about being holy and not having "pagan elements" mixed in with worship.
Thursday was named after the god Thor. It doesn't matter if people ver held a feast to the god Thor; they honoured him so much that they named a day of the week after him.

There is no national weekly Thor day we celebrate where we take out hammers and wave them around and chant, or something dumb like that.

There doesn't need to be. The day was given it's name in honour of him. The months were named in honour of gods too.
You say that we should get rid of all "pagan elements" in our worship.
Even if everyone else did worship the god Thor on a particular day, Christians wouldn't.

On Christmas, there are other activities that are committed that fall into violating God’s Word.

So why are you assuming that Christians are doing them?
Why have you been acting as though Christians worship their trees and pay homage to father Christmas (who you seem to think is like God and all knowing, instead of realising it is a man in a costume)?
Why have you been implying that we all receive costly goods that we don't need, or eat and drink like it's going out of fashion?
Don't you realise that some of us do charity work that day; that churches have lunches for the homeless, that some folk invite lonely neighbours around?

You seem to be looking at all the worst excesses and elements of Christmas, assume that no one can celebrate the feast without doing those things and have taken it upon yourself to rebuke and criticise us for doing them.
You have no idea.

That’s why Christmas is a problem.

Not for us, it isn't.

It’s not just the name alone.

What - CHRIST's mass?
It's not called the festival of the tree, or the "let's all worship the man in the red suit" day.

If it was just a day of the week that nobody cared about like Thursday,

So no one cares about Maundy Thursday, or that the feast of the ascension - 10 days after the resurrection - is held on a Thursday?

So those who bring up how the days of the week are pagan as a justification for enjoying Christmas are not thinking logically.

I didn't say it was a justification for enjoying Christmas. I don't need to justify celebrating the birth of God's Son - the whole angelic host did, so it's not wrong.

I mentioned the days of the week because they were named after pagan gods, and you were talking about having no "pagan influences".

 

[Strong in Him]

The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, in the article "Natal Day," records that the early Catholic church father, Origen, acknowledged:

“In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners like Pharaoh and Herod who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world.“​

That's what JWs say: Herod and Pharaoh, who were bad people, did bad things on their birthdays - therefore it is wrong for anyone, anywhere to remember the day on which they were born. Which is completely illogical.

So by NOT celebrating a birthday of Christmas you are emulating a Christian cult.

 

[Strong in Him]

The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, says:

“According to… most scholars today, the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar, January 6 in the Egyptian), because on this day, as the sun began its return to northern skies, the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the dies natalis Solis Invicti(birthday of the Invincible Sun).​

Even if Dec 25th was celebrated, by some pagans, as the birthday of the "invincible sun", ( and I don't know that it was) what has that got to do with Christians?

You realise, I suppose, that the sun is NOT invincible - that one day it will burn out/implode/disappear?
You realise there is a verse in Revelation which says that "they need no sun because the Lord himself is their light"?
You realise that the sun was created by the SON, who IS invincible, will never die or be overcome and has ALL authority in heaven and on earth? That this SON became flesh and was born - a fact confirmed by the Gospels?

So instead of criticising us, and presumably others, for apparently celebrating the "birth" of a mythical god, acclaimed by pagans, why aren't you telling everyone that CHRIST mass is about remembering, and celebrating, the birth of the SON of God who will never die or be overcome? Why, as I said before, aren't you using the occasion for evangelism; sending Christian cards with Bible verse to your non Christian neighbours, inviting them to a carol service where they may hear the Gospel for the first time?

Or is it easier to sit on a high horse and criticise what you think that other Christians are doing?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I address that topic in that thread. One can speak true words using clever word play that can be slightly misleading but it is not technically a lie.

No it’s still a lie if the intent is deception.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No it’s still a lie if the intent is deception.

No. A deception is not always a lie.
A lie is saying words that are completely untrue.

Take for example, Jesus did not reveal who He was to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
He made them think He was just a stranger and not Jesus. What do you call that?

In John 10:22-39, Jesus made a claim to deity as God (John 10:30).
The Jews wanted to stone Jesus because of blasphemy because He made Himself to be God (John 10:31-33).
But Jesus deflects away from His claim to deity by telling the Jews, "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34).
So Jesus was deflecting away from the fact that He was God to protect His mission obviously. What do you call that?

In John chapter 6, there were many disciples that stopped following Jesus (666. I mean, John 6:66). They misunderstood Jesus about His words in how they were to eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. Jesus did not chase after them to explain their own misunderstanding of His words. Jesus allowed them to believe their own false thinking. Jesus words could be interpreted in the way that the many disciples had chosen. Jesus did not set out to clarify. He allowed them to believe what they wanted from His words. What do you call that?

In Joshua 8, God gives instruction to deceive the armies of His enemies into thinking they could capture the Israelites in the city. So when the Israelites fled outside the city, in reality it was an ambush and there were more Israelite soldiers hiding outside the city to take the enemies by surprise as they ran out. What do you call that?

There are Old Testament verses that are Messianic prophecies. But by a normal reading If you were not aware of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, these prophecies are not so readily recognizable.

God will send a strong delusion to wicked people who reject the truth that they may believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Again, this does not mean God is lying by doing this. Do you see the difference now?

Proverbs 25:2 says,
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Church celebrates all the major events in the Gospel. I've already told you that every day of the year is sanctified by feast days and fasting days commemorating the events of the Gospels and the lives of the Saints. The angels glorified God on the day of His birth. The Church does nothing less.

December 25th is not the date of the Winter solstice and there are no historical references to devotees of Mithras celebrating on December 25th prior to Christians celebrating the birth of Christ.

Also, if you are going to quote what is claimed to be the Catholic Encyclopedia then actually quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, not some site that claims to be quoting it. If you search for that text you get a whole lot of sites with the same quote (including Jehovas Witness), but strangely enough, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not one of those sites.

Instead of your knee jerk response of copy/pasting unverifiable information from some random website, why don't you actually research primary sources. You won't find anything backing up your claims because it is pretty much all made up.

I will post this info to you in a PM.

 

[Der Alte]

I will post this info to you in a PM.

FYI the Catholic Encyclopedia is available online.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home

One of the biggest Catholic resources on the Internet, containing more than 10,000 articles

www.newadvent.org

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Church celebrates all the major events in the Gospel. I've already told you that every day of the year is sanctified by feast days and fasting days commemorating the events of the Gospels and the lives of the Saints. The angels glorified God on the day of His birth. The Church does nothing less.

Scripture does not record the angels or the wisemen continuing to worship Jesus as a baby when He was an adult on December 25th. There are no Christ-mass instructions given to us by either Jesus or the apostle Paul. You would think if it was important, there would be Scripture telling us about how we should cut down a tree and decorate it with silver and gold (Which sounds like Jeremiah 10), and to give each other gifts around this idol tree, and to have a Yule log, etcetera.

December 25th is not the date of the Winter solstice and there are no historical references to devotees of Mithras celebrating on December 25th prior to Christians celebrating the birth of Christ.

People see what they want to see. I am sure if I even showed a screen cap of the actual encyclopedia if I ever get a copy, it would not convince you. It’s like the whole 27th edition Nestle and Aland argument. You can show people the truth on that, and they just will still not be able to read the words on the page and understand even if a copyright lawyer could explain it to them. They still would not get it. Their belief becomes stronger than reality.

Also, if you are going to quote what is claimed to be the Catholic Encyclopedia then actually quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, not some site that claims to be quoting it. If you search for that text you get a whole lot of sites with the same quote (including Jehovas Witness), but strangely enough, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not one of those sites.

No, I did not get it from that source.

But here is another source that says it differently.

Encyclopedia.com states:

“…while the traditional date of Christmas, first attested in the fourth century, is hardly unrelated to the fact that December 25 was celebrated as the birthday of Sol Invictus Mithra."

Source:

Sol Invictus | Encyclopedia.com

SOL INVICTUS SOL INVICTUS . Worship of the sun god, Sol, was known in republican Rome, but it was of minor importance. In imperial Rome, however, in the third century ce (the last century of pagan Rome), the cult of the sun god became a major and, at times, dominant force in Roman religion...

www.encyclopedia.com

This is date of celebration of the worship, Sōl Invictus on December 25th can be seen here by Oxford.

"Its dedication day was 25 December."

Sōl Invictus

"Sōl Invictus" published on by null.

www.oxfordreference.com

 

[Bible Highlighter]

FYI the Catholic Encyclopedia is available online.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home

One of the biggest Catholic resources on the Internet, containing more than 10,000 articles

www.newadvent.org

*Sigh*. If you were to do your own homework, Not all Catholic encyclopedia editions or their dictionaries say all the same things exactly. Some older encyclopedias and dictionaries have information that is no longer available in the newer ones. It is hard to find these older encyclopedias and dictionaries. I explained a personal experience of my account on this study that I do not wish to make public here at CF.

 

[Der Alte]

*Sigh*. If you were to do your own homework, Not all Catholic encyclopedia editions or their dictionaries say the same thing.

Do you have anything relevant to say? If you have access to a more accurate Catholic Encyclopedia, which I highly doubt, then post a quote from and a link to it. Otherwise my friend the answer is blowing in the wind.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Think. They put the Christmas star (Which is basically a sun of another solar system) on top of the Christ-mass tree. They got little lights (little stars or suns) all over the tree. So it is not a coincidence that December 25th just so happens to be the same day that they worshiped a sun god back in Rome. Jeremiah 10 says do not practice the ways of the heathen. Even if there was just a remote chance this was true, I would not want to play games and take that chance. I mean, folks put gifts around this Christ-mass idol tree. They gave gifts and sacrifices to idols back in the day. While one may not regard the tree as an idol, it paints a picture of that practice by pagans. Why imitate what they did? It makes no sense. But again, I think the pleasure of wanting to be accepted by your family, and friends and the pleasure of the holiday is too strong to forsake such a holiday. So of course folks will not see it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you have anything relevant to say? If you have access to a more accurate Catholic Encyclopedia, which I highly doubt, then post a quote from and a link to it. Otherwise my friend the answer is blowing in the wind.

Dear sir, either investigate the truth for yourself, or continue to keep acting like you are the know it all scholar.
This is why I have chosen to not reply to your posts as little as possible or to ignore them altogether. Your thoughts are king and cannot be challenged. You can never be wrong. You are always right no matter what. I will admit when I am wrong. Therein lies the difference between us, dear sir. That is why having any conversation with you is not fruitful. The conversation is always one-sided with you always being right. I am willing to take correction, and I have in the past. Not so for you, my friend.

 

[Der Alte]

Scripture does not record the angels or the wisemen continuing to worship Jesus as a baby when He was an adult on December 25th. There are no Christ-mass instructions given to us by either Jesus or the apostle Paul. You would think if it was important, there would be Scripture telling us about how we should cut down a tree and decorate it with silver and gold (Which sounds like Jeremiah 10), and to give each other gifts around this idol tree, and to have a Yule log, etcetera.
People see what they want to see. I am sure if I even showed a screen cap of the actual encyclopedia if I ever get a copy, it would not convince you. It’s like the whole 27th edition Nestle and Aland argument. You can show people the truth on that, and they just will still not be able to read the words on the page and understand even if a copyright lawyer could explain it to them. They still would not get it. Their belief becomes stronger than reality.
No, I did not get it from that source.
But here is another source that says it differently.
Encyclopedia.com states:
“…while the traditional date of Christmas, first attested in the fourth century, is hardly unrelated to the fact that December 25 was celebrated as the birthday of Sol Invictus Mithra."
Source:

Sol Invictus | Encyclopedia.com

SOL INVICTUS SOL INVICTUS . Worship of the sun god, Sol, was known in republican Rome, but it was of minor importance. In imperial Rome, however, in the third century ce (the last century of pagan Rome), the cult of the sun god became a major and, at times, dominant force in Roman religion...

www.encyclopedia.com

This is date of celebration of the worship, Sōl Invictus on December 25th can be seen here by Oxford.
"Its dedication day was 25 December."

Sōl Invictus

"Sōl Invictus" published on by null.

www.oxfordreference.com

A link to the online Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mithraism. His birth is mentioned but no mention of any date.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mithraism

A pagan religion consisting mainly of the cult of the ancient Indo-Iranian Sun-god Mithra

www.newadvent.org

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A link to the online Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mithraism. His birth is mentioned but no mention of any date.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mithraism

A pagan religion consisting mainly of the cult of the ancient Indo-Iranian Sun-god Mithra

www.newadvent.org

If you are following the conversation, you will see that I mention other sources.

 

[Der Alte]

Dear sir, either investigate the truth for yourself, or continue to keep acting like you are the know it all scholar.
This is why I have chosen to not reply to your posts as little as possible or to ignore you altogether. Your thoughts are king and cannot be challenged. You can never be wrong. You are always right no matter what. I will admit when I am wrong. Therein lies the difference between us, dear sir.

IOW you can't refute what I post so you attack me. I have and do my own research and almost always post a link to any source I quote, if one is available. Anything I post can be challenged but only with credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence which does not include unverifiable teachings from someone's pastors/teachers/leaders etc. I too admit when I am wrong but that hasn't happened and a good long while and certainly not in any discussion with you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A link to the online Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mithraism. His birth is mentioned but no mention of any date.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mithraism

A pagan religion consisting mainly of the cult of the ancient Indo-Iranian Sun-god Mithra

www.newadvent.org

See the end of post #690 for other sources.

 

[Der Alte]

If you are following the conversation, you will see that I mention other sources.

Did you link to anything? Or is it a secret?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

IOW you can't refute what I post so you attack me. I have and do my own research and almost always post a link to any source I quote, if one is available. Anything I post can be challenged but only with credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence which does not include unverifiable teachings from someone's pastors/teachers/leaders etc. I too admit when I am wrong but that hasn't happened and a good long while and certainly not in any discussion with you.

I have used Scripture to refute your claims of your view of how sources always need to be by scholars. Peter was a fisherman!!!! He was not a scholar!!!! So to say that some non-scholar today cannot tell the truth and be accepted is incorrect.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did you link to anything? Or is it a secret?

See post #698.