Why do we do things not written in the Bible?

Bro.T said:

But if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it from paganism, where did the pagans get it?

Click to expand...

It is a matter of speculation as to why December 25th was the day chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus. History does not tell us. There are many theories.

Valletta said:

It is a matter of speculation as to why December 25th was the day chosen to celebrate the birth of Jesus. History does not tell us. There are many theories.

Click to expand...

There isn't any singular piece of evidence that brings everything together in a neat and tidy way. But we do have evidence of the thought processes Christians were using.

If Jesus was conceived on March 25th, then nine months later is December 25th.
Why would Jesus have been conceived on March 25th? Because it seemed to make sense to early Christians that if Jesus died on March 25th then He would have been conceived on the same date: Why? The most likely rationale is that early Christians were influenced by Jewish thought. The Talmud says that Moses was both born and died on Adar 7th--because prophets and holy men had "perfect" or "integral" lives (born and dying on the same date). We don't know exactly how or why some early Christians then made the leap from birth to conception in this context--though it may simply be as simple as Jesus' conception was really important; as the moment of the Incarnation, God become flesh.

What's missing is when chronologies and calculations being done by Christians translate into an annual liturgical celebration. We can talk about "the other Christmas", that is January 6th, Epiphany. Many Christians observed Epiphany as a broad feast and liturgical celebration of Christ's Revelation. The core event celebrated by Epiphany is Christ's Baptism, but many also celebrated it as Jesus' birth, the coming of Christ, the coming of God, the appearing of God in the world (aka Theophany). Even to this day January 6th is still Christmas on the Armenian Church's liturgical calendar--having never adopted December 25th.

The Chronograph of 354 presents December 25th as Christ's Nativity Feast, how long had this been Christian practice? It's not entirely possible to say. But by the date of the Chronograph it is already an established liturgical observance, at least for the Christian community in Rome. And over time this Western Christmas tradition would spread Eastward, St. John Chrysostom encouraged his community to celebrate Christmas on December 25th. So this was probably part of the large scale standardizing of the Christian calendar which was underway in the 4th century. As Christianity went from a persecuted religious group to being able to worship openly--and even receiving favor from the imperial court--it became easier for Christian communities across the ancient Christian world to work a lot of practical matters out. So we start to see a standardization of Christian liturgical celebrations on the calendar, the most important of course was establishing a single standard of computation for the Paschal Feast. But this obviously came to also include other liturgical observances, such as Christmas. Noting that Christmas was a "minor" feast on the Christian calendar relatively speaking, even for many, many centuries to come--even into the late middle ages and early modern period.

So we don't have all the information. There are significant gaps with some good scholarly conjecture in some cases. But we do have sufficient broad strokes to get, at the very least, a hazy picture.

Early Christians were curious about calculating when Jesus' Passion was, when He was born, and from this some Christians started celebrating Christ's Nativity on the calculated date of His birth--December 25th. This practice then extended into other Christian communities, and became the standard liturgical feast of Christ's Nativity for most of the Christian world.

So we definitely don't need to entertain wild speculative fiction or conspiracy theories, as some like our OP friend are trying to do.

@PloverWing - regarding your remarks concerning Lent having always been observed by Lutherans and Anglicans, you are correct - additionally the Great Lent has always been celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East, churches which were never under the control of Rome, as well as the Nativity Fast (known as Advent in the West) - additionally, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox keep other fasts throughout the year such as the Apostles’ Fast, the Dormition Fast, and in the case of the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East, the three day Fast of Nineveh, also known as the Fast of Jonah and the Rogation of the Ninevites (this likely started among the Syriac and Assyrian Christians, who to this day live in the Nineveh Plains, and thus include members directly descended from the Ninevites whom St. Jonah the Prophet was sent to preach to, and then spread to the Coptic Orthodox and Armenian Aposotlic churches through pan-Orthodox osmosis. It’s possible at one time the Eastern Orthodox also celebrated this fast, but then someone had the unpleasant idea of rejecting it outright in favor of a fast-free week followiing Septuagesima, without even the Wednesday and Friday fasts if memory served, as a means of “refuting the Armenians and their accursed heresy” - as some editions of the Triodion (not the definitive English translation by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, a staunch advocate for EO-OO reunion, who was above putting polemics in hymnals and prayer books*.

Thus we can positively assert the idea that the Lent is some sort of Roman Catholic conspiracy to be without entirely merit, devoid of any basis in historical fact or reason.

*Another disagreeable example of such polemical content having infiltrated liturgical books is the infamous Black Rubric in the 1552 and 1662 English editions of the Book of Common Prayer, but importantly, not in the Elizabethan Prayer Book or editions before the Restoration following Cromwell’s iconoclastic tyranny. During that brief period of time, Anglicanism was itself persecuted, and fearing such persecution, the Black Rubric was restored, but increasingly ignored, so that by the time the 1928 Deposited Book was published, most of the C of E had moved on. The Scottish Episcopalians and the Episcopal Church USA, and its high church continuing Anglican relatives (and as far as I know, ACNA, with the possible exception of the Reformed Episcopal Church; I haven’t looked at their BCP recently so I can’t remember) have never had the Black Rubric; indeed the inclusion in the Non-Juring Episcopalian prayer book of the Epiclesis from the Divine Liturgy of St. James, and its subsequent inclusion in honor of the agreement for the ordination of Bishop Seward in the American editions of the Book of Common Prayer, contradict the Black Rubric.

By the way I would note that criticizing the Roman Catholic Church and falsely accusing it of indulging in Pagan practices is definitely not in the Bible, so even if one applies the Regulatory Principle to Christian praxis, which I would argue is self-contradictory on the basis of the authority given to Church Tradition by 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15-2:37 , among other verses, there is still no justification for this kind of hostile polemics against the pious devotions of other Christians. Christ commanded us to love one another , and I don’t see much love in accusations of crypto-Paganism directed at most Christians, not just Roman Catholics , but everyone else who celebrates Christmas on December 25th (the only ancient church this does not apply to is the Armenian Apostolic Church, which celebrates Christmas together with the Baptism of Christ on January 6th, which was the custom before the Nativity Feast, Christmas, was scheduled to follow nine months from the Baptism of Christ, as an anti-Arian move, not as a move driven by Paganism , but Arians , who deny the deity of Christ, were not a major problem in Armenia at the time, which had only been converted to Christ a few months before, so to this day the Armenian church preserves the ancient practice , but of course, they are in full communion with the other Oriental Orthodox churches who do celebrate the Nativity on January 25th on either the old or new calendar (in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, all Orthodox, Eastern and Oriental, use the old Julian calendar).

So if one wants to go strictly by what is in the Bible, where the birth of Christ was celebrated, by angels, shepherds and the Magi, well, one should not make accusations of Paganism against Christians for doing so on the date reckoned to be nine months from the date on which the early Christians celebrated the annunciation of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Why do we do things not written in the Bible?​

Click to expand...

Like, using computers, you mean?

@The Liturgist : I thought of the Orthodox churches as I was writing about Lent and almost put in a sentence mentioning Great Lent. In the end, I took it out, because the narrow topic was the Protestant churches. But I emphatically agree that the observance of Lent predates the East-West Schism.

@PloverWing indeed, I had no doubt that you had that view; I was merely seeking to reinforce your argument, because the existence of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Church of the East, none of them ever under the control of the Roman church, and in the case of the Church of the East, historically larger in terms of geographic coverage, at least until Tamerlane’s genocide, make the argument ‘well, the Anglicans and Lutherans just didn’t de-Romanize enough” , which I have seen, quite untenable.

Jesus was not a baby? Ever?

Bro.T said:

The same people that celebrates Christmas pagan holidays are the same people who go to church on the first day of the week Sunday. Can't read that in the Bible to do either, but Paul say in 2 Corinthians 11:4 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. Now any Christian in their right mind wouldn’t dare say that it’s okay to steal, kill or commit adultery or break any of the other seven commandments. But when it comes to the fourth commandment, people avoid it like a plague! They are either uninformed about which day is the Sabbath day of the God of the Bible or they are just following the tradition of religion that was passed down through the family or maybe they have let some preacher give them other excuses for ignoring God’s true day of worship.

Click to expand...

Can’t read in the Bible where anyone kept the sabbath before Moses or where the sabbath is required of the Christian. You can’t even show where the law was given to the gentiles collectively. The problem with your legalistic diatribe is that you have no biblical, historical, or linguistic evidence to support it.

Bro.T said:

"Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men. But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. (Jeremiah 10th Chapter)

This is in the year of B.C. in the days of the prophet Jeremiah, and after the death of Jesus 30 A.D. years down the line, the people of the world (Roman Catholics) added what Jeremiah says not to do with the birth of Jesus which in the days of King Herod, he didn't even know. In the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matthew 2: 1-3). The bible record of the birth of Jesus doesn't give a date for his birth. Even Herod, the King of Judea, didn't know the date of Jesus birth; so how can we know it? The wise men (maybe 2 or 300), the bible didn't give a number, found the young child (not infant) in the house (not the manger). Well, so much for that fairy tale.

Click to expand...

Ashurah Poles are not Christmas trees.

Try again.

My take on this is the Christians who condemn fellow Christians for a different practice are the ones who are teaching legalism and missing the Gospel; in effect, teaching another gospel. Such hatred is not from Christ, so, it must be from... (we all can fill in the blanks), hell is full of those who feel that they can do enough and keep the law.

God bless all who love our Lord Jesus Christ enough to rejoice in His Incarnation to pay for our insurmountable guilt due to our inability to keep the law; may God, in His infinite mercy, send the Spirit of enlightenment to those who see no merit in these festivals that have blessed Christians for almost 2000 years.

Bro.T said:

"Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities. Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men. But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. (Jeremiah 10th Chapter)

This is in the year of B.C. in the days of the prophet Jeremiah, and after the death of Jesus 30 A.D. years down the line, the people of the world (Roman Catholics) added what Jeremiah says not to do with the birth of Jesus which in the days of King Herod, he didn't even know. In the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. (Matthew 2: 1-3). The bible record of the birth of Jesus doesn't give a date for his birth. Even Herod, the King of Judea, didn't know the date of Jesus birth; so how can we know it? The wise men (maybe 2 or 300), the bible didn't give a number, found the young child (not infant) in the house (not the manger). Well, so much for that fairy tale.

Click to expand...

This is the old "Jeremiah 10 is referring to Christmas trees" claim... or probably not so old, as I have been unable to find anyone assert this interpretation prior to the 20th century; even writings I have seen from before then by people who didn't like Christmas trees didn't use this interpretation. People interpreted it, logically, as talking about taking a tree, then shaping it into an idol. This Christmas tree interpretation appears to have mostly been popularized by Herbert Armstrong, a guy who held to a bunch of weird views (some of which would disallow him from posting in the Christian-only parts of this forum) and is often considered a cult leader.

Of course, it makes sense that this interpretation was apparently unknown prior to the 20th century, because of the weaknesses in the interpretation. In the first place, Christmas trees only emerged around the year 1500 AD in Germany, so they would not exist until about two thousand years after Jeremiah wrote these words. So even if this was some kind of description of pagans decorating and worshiping a tree, this practice had been dead for so long by Christmas trees that any similarity would be coincidental. I should also point out that people do not worship Christmas trees, they just put them up for decoration. So even if these verses was actually about trees, the lack of worship and the time gap show a lack of applicability.

But the problems get worse, for all one has to do is read the passage more carefully to see that it doesn't make much sense to interpret this as talking about trees at all, but rather the creation of wooden idols (trees only factor insofar as you get wood from trees). I notice you are citing the KJV, whose archaic language somewhat obscures the meaning of the passage, but the issues can be discerned even in the KJV. It mentions cutting down the tree and then the workman (craftsman) working on it--why would you need a craftsman if you were just cutting down a tree? No, a craftsman takes the wood and turns it into something. With the context, it's obvious it's an idol, most likely a humanoid one. Further confirmation of this is "they must needs be borne" (be carried) "because they cannot go" (because they cannot walk). Who expects a tree to walk? But if we're talking about a humanoid idol, which would have legs, it makes sense to point that out as evidence of their lifelessness. Similarly, no one expects a tree to talk, but a humanoid idol with a face would have that make more sense. It also mentions "blue and purple is their clothing" (do people put clothes on a tree? I've never seen that on a Christmas tree, at least), again fitting with an idol, but not a tree. Everything lines up with this referring to a wooden idol crafted from a tree, not a tree itself.

More detailed information on the major problems of applying Jeremiah 10 to Christmas trees can be found here:
And later elaborated further upon here:

Bro.T said:

Many of our present Christmas traditions and symbols have historical roots in ancient paganistic rites related to Celtic, Druid, Roman or Nordic.

Click to expand...

I'll adjust this to the following: Many of our present winter solstice cultural traditions have historical roots in cultural traditions from earlier people who experienced the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere.

My Celtic and Germanic and Norse ancestors believed that it got very cold and dark during the winter, and many of the plants died or fell dormant. Some of them found that they felt less cold and sad if they lit fires and candles and decorated with whatever brightly-colored plants they could find around them. It turns out that I also feel less cold and sad if I light fires and candles (and electric lights) and decorate with brightly-colored plants. No modern European believes that the sun is going to return any faster if you light a fire. But a fire is still bright and warm. Not everything the ancient Europeans believed about the world was false.

Maybe you live in the tropics, or the Southern Hemisphere, or maybe you love winter because you like to ski. Good for you. Think of me while you're sipping your piña colada on your tropical beach. But where I live, it's cold and dark in December, and it makes me sad, and I get less sad when the house and the neighborhood are full of colored lights.

Bro.T said:

ORIGIN OF SUNDAY WORSHIP

Click to expand...

Most Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead on the "first day of the week" (Sunday). We meet weekly on Sunday to remember Jesus' resurrection.

If you also want to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest on Saturday, feel free. It's healthy to rest from work periodically.

Bro.T said:

Paul say in (1 Cor.10:20-22) (v.20) “and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils”. (v.21) Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (v.22) Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

Now here’s your chance to come into the light. (1Peter: 2:9) “that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:” Open your eyes sisters and brothers and see. Let no man deceive you. As it is written in (Rev12:9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Satan through man (Religious Teaching) has deceived the whole world.

ORIGIN OF SUNDAY WORSHIP

Ample evidence from history shows that the celebration of Sunday originated from pagan practices of SUN WORSHIP. In March of 321 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was at first a sun-worshiper and later a Christian convert, issued the first decree declaring Sunday to be a legal day of rest. In 336 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church officially changed the observance of Sabbath to Sunday for political and economic expediency. Since then, the original Sabbath gradually gave way to Sunday observance and the practice remains to this day.

Let’s take a look and see what Jesus did when he came in the flesh, And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. (Luke 4:14-16)

Click to expand...

Paganism pre-dated Christianity. The cross was a pagan symbol. It does not follow that Jesus died on a cross to convert everyone to paganism.

Bro.T said:

The modern Christmas tree can easily be traced back to seventeenth century Germany; branches of holly and mistletoe were likewise displayed. Not only did these plants remain green through the winter months, but they also bore fruit at that time, thus symbolizing life in an otherwise dead season.

Click to expand...

So you appear to admit that Christmas trees are a development far too late for any ancient pagan customs to have any influence on them. I'm glad you were apparently willing to admit that.

However, you then pivot to something new, which has its own new problems:

Bro.T said:

Many of our present Christmas traditions and symbols have historical roots in ancient paganistic rites related to Celtic, Druid, Roman or Nordic. Druid ceremonies were based on an eight-fold year. Four were solar and the other four were lunar. The Yule celebration is Dec. 22 or Winter Solstice. Yule is one of the eight festival days of the pagans. The Roman and Nordic invaders of Ireland had an influence on the prominence and significance of Yule. Yule, in both old Roman paganism and in Norse tradition, was the start of the New Year. Yule comes from a Nordic word meaning "wheel." The Christmas wreath is a symbol of the wheel of the year. Yule altars throughout paganism show the influence of Ireland and the Druids with their holly, pine and mistletoe coverings. Yule rituals enact birthing rites, ask for the sun god's return, and beseech that the wheel of the year be turned again.

The very word "Druid" means wise man of the oak, or "One who has knowledge of the oak." The custom of lighting a Yule log is an ancient Druid practice. A log, usually of the god-related oak tree, is carved into a small section which is brought into a dwelling. Holes are drilled into the log and candies inserted. The entire log is then decoratively covered with holly and evergreens to represent the intertwining of god and goddess, or male and female elements. Hopes for fertile crops, herds, and families are invested in the Yule log image.

Consider the habit of putting up lights. The profusion of lights on house and tree at Christmas time is a carry-over of the candles and fires lit in sympathetic magic to lure back the waning sun. Today it's still an Irish custom to leave lights burning all through the house on midwinter night to honor the sun's return. Fires and lights, symbols of warmth and lasting life, have always been associated with the winter solstice festival of the pagans.

Click to expand...

You make these assertions, but cite no evidence. Our information about the druids is rather scanty, and if you have evidence for these, it might be good to notify historians so they do. Or, at least, share it with us, for these claims seem very questionable. So, point us to the primary sources that affirm the things you describe. Because if there aren't primary sources, then that would mean this is just a bunch of nonsense from other people that you're uncritically repeating.

Let's take one example. You claim:

"The custom of lighting a Yule log is an ancient Druid practice. A log, usually of the god-related oak tree, is carved into a small section which is brought into a dwelling. Holes are drilled into the log and candies inserted. The entire log is then decoratively covered with holly and evergreens to represent the intertwining of god and goddess, or male and female elements. Hopes for fertile crops, herds, and families are invested in the Yule log image."

No primary source--or any source at all--is provided by you. I strongly suspect there is no such source, and this is totally made up. I say this for two reasons.

First, you claim this was a Druid practice. But the Druids seem to have largely faded away by the 2nd century AD under Roman occupation. Yule was a term for winter that came to Britain with the Anglo-Saxons, who arrived in the 5th century. How precisely would the Druids have been engaging in anything related to Yule when it hadn't even been introduced yet?

Second, even if we were to ignore that and ask about the Yule Log solely, we run into a larger problem. Despite the common claim, there is as far as I can tell a paucity of evidence there was ever any pagan practice of a "Yule Log". Most likely there were pagans who used logs as firewood, but that doesn't mean they attached any religious importance to them, much less that "the entire log is then decoratively covered with holly and evergreens to represent the intertwining of god and goddess, or male and female elements". As far as I can tell, the term "Yule Log" first appeared in the 17th century in a reference to Christmas customs (certainly, I have seen no one point to an earlier usage). While there are earlier instances of the log's usage described without that specific name, all of the ones I can find are in reference to Christmas, not any pagan practice. The idea that this had a connection to an earlier pagan Yule celebration appears to have been the invention of later writers who saw "Yule Log" and assumed it had a pagan origin based on the name, despite the apparent lack of any actual attestation to such a thing, and the apparent inability of anyone to point to evidence of it. Even the (speculative) ideas I've seen pointed to for possible evidence of pagans practicing such a thing fall very well short of any reference that "the entire log is then decoratively covered with holly and evergreens to represent the intertwining of god and goddess, or male and female elements" as you claimed.

If you indeed do have primary sources attesting to these claims of yours (rather than this just being you copying a bunch of incorrect information from others), it would be quite appreciated if you would provide it.