Why I don't do Christmas

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Eph, cut and pasting material is not really conducive to discussion. You seem to cut and paste, ignore the arguments presented against it, then cut and paste. If you want to participate in the discussion, try using your own arguments.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Thus The Theology Of Christmass Began!!

Christmas began as recorded in Luke 1-2.

 

[Melethiel]

Why do you have such a problem with the "theology behind Christmas"? Is the Incarnation not a worthy thing to celebrate?

 

[Eph4:26]

Eph,. . .

I'd prefer it that you extend the common courtesy of referring to me as Eph4:26. I could address you as 'septic', but that would be in poor taste.

 

[Thekla]

Thus The Theology Of Christmass Began!!

The "theology" of the commemoration of the nativity of Christ predates the fixing of the new date. In fact, the commemoration of the Nativity originally was concurrent with the commemoration of Theophany. The "theology" did not change with the new date.

 

[Eph4:26]

. . . If you want to participate in the discussion, try using your own arguments.

Fair enough.

There is no Biblical precedent for remembrance of the day of Christ's birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn't remember Christ's birth and its significance, but for religious commemorations or celebrations, there is no Biblical command. The early church did not celebrate Christ's birth (see previous reprint of Anti-Christ In The Manger), but such celebration only came into the church with the "Christianization" of pagan rites as Roman Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century A.D. Since the Word of God does not support the tradition of Christmas, a Christian's conscience ought not and must not be bound to a tradition that is an evolution of pagan practices.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Eph, cut and pasting material is not really conducive to discussion. You seem to cut and paste, ignore the arguments presented against it, then cut and paste. If you want to participate in the discussion, try using your own arguments.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7425823/
Some helpful hints about effective debating...

B. What problems can arise from citations?
Bias.

A citation should strive to represent either the disinterested words/analysis of an expert or show facts as they really are.

When a citation is biased, it fails to give a fair and accurate representation of facts, thereby leading to falsification and thus weakening an argument, as a biased source fails to support an argument and also casts a bad light upon the person utilizing a biased source.

Additionally, citations cannot be used alone.

While a citation may present an argument, it is not good use of a citation to simply copy paste large sections into your browser. Citations should ideally only be citing facts, and facts without analysis are useless. Include either an analysis that supports your argument or cite a small section that has a clear, well-defined fact or argument that supports your argument.

 

[Eph4:26]

Although it doesn't violate any laws governed by the forum, it does violate the unwritten law of bad taste to post in . . .

'Why I don't do anti-Christmas threads...' and to simultaneously defend your religion of Christmas in a thread entitled
'Why I Don't Do Christmas'.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Fair enough.

There is no Biblical precedent for remembrance of the day of Christ's birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say that we shouldn't remember Christ's birth and its significance, but for religious commemorations or celebrations, there is no Biblical command.

This is the command argument- you say not to do something since the bible does not command it. The bible does not command most of what Christians do. The NT is a story about the life of Christ and some letters from its leaders. It is not meant as a law that provides all actions that Christians are permitted.

The early church did not celebrate Christ's birth (see previous reprint of Anti-Christ In The Manger), but such celebration only came into the church with the "Christianization" of pagan rites as Roman Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century A.D. Since the Word of God does not support the tradition of Christmas, a Christian's conscience ought not and must not be bound to a tradition that is an evolution of pagan practices.

Constantine legalized Christianity, he did not make it the state religion. Early Christians did celebrate Christmas long before the 4th Century. It had nothing to do with paganism whatsoever. The holy day is an entirely Christian affair that relates what the Gospel tells us.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Although it doesn't violate any laws governed by the forum, it does violate the unwritten law of bad taste to post in . . .

'Why I don't do anti-Christmas threads...' and to simultaneously defend your religion of Christmas in a thread entitled
'Why I Don't Do Christmas'.

No it doesn't. Christmas isn't a religion, it is a holiday.

 

[Eph4:26]

This is the command argument- you say not to do something since the bible does not command it. The bible does not command most of what Christians do. The NT is a story about the life of Christ and some letters from its leaders. It is not meant as a law that provides all actions that Christians are permitted.



Constantine legalized Christianity, he did not make it the state religion. Early Christians did celebrate Christmas long before the 4th Century. It had nothing to do with paganism whatsoever.

SpiritualAntiseptic . . . I understand your postion with no need to comment further.

. . . The holy day is an entirely Christian affair that relates what the Gospel tells us.. .

SpiritualAntiseptic . . . I very much would like to know, in your own words, 'what the Gospel tells us'?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

SpiritualAntiseptic . . . I understand your postion with no need to comment further.

Which is because what I spoke was factual and verifiable, while what you said was historically inaccurate and misleading.

SpiritualAntiseptic . . . I very much would like to know, in your own words, 'what the Gospel tells us'?

Just read Luke chapters 1-2.

 

[Melethiel]

...Roman Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the fourth century A.D...

No he didn't. That was Theodosius. Constantine merely legalized it. Moreover, even when Theodosius made Christianity the state religion, it was not Roman Catholicism (which actually doesn't even exist as a church - there is a Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, but no Roman Catholic Church per se) but simply Christianity, as this was before the Great Schism.

Tell me, why should I believe anything you claim about the historical origins of Christmas when you can't even get that simple historical fact correct?

 

[pgp_protector]

Why do you have such a problem with the "theology behind Christmas"? Is the Incarnation not a worthy thing to celebrate?

Eph doesn't think so apparently.
I think they should rewrite it form "The Theology of Christmas" to "The Theology of Eph."

 

[Eph4:26]

I very much would like to know, in your own words, 'what the Gospel tells us'?

. . . Just read Luke chapters 1-2.

I don't mean you, or anyone else, any disrespect. It is not uncommon for me to ask someone, such as yourself, to '. . . in your own words . . ' and get the canned theological answer.

Once upon a time, when I was Catholic, I thought the same way. However, now that I have freed myself of the ritual of Christmas for the past 10 years -- I've come to articulate myself with respects to what the Bible teaches in greater detail.

I will comment in further detail when time permits.

 

[Melethiel]

I guess I've made the ignore list too, since all of my last posts have been ignored...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I guess I've made the ignore list too, since all of my last posts have been ignored...

Don't feel alone

 

[pgp_protector]

I guess I've made the ignore list too, since all of my last posts have been ignored...

It's an easy way to avoid answering questions.

 

[Thekla]

I guess I'm on ignore, too.

I honestly think Ephesians 4:26 has mistaken how the secular culture has distorted Christmas for the Christian commemoration of the Nativity.

“It always seemed strange to me that the things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, aquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and selfinterest are the traits of sucess. And while men admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second.” John Steinbeck


Its a culture that twists a great deal.

 

[Discern]

At the time of Paul's ministry, Jewish Believers and Gentile Believers were called out of some form of tradition into a new body which is the Church.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that celebrating Christmas is ok because Paul would have approved of it?

There is no value for me to restate my position that I don't do Christmas because of my believe that it is an amalgamation of pagan\secular traditions and that its institution is of a political necessity rather than an opportunity to preach the gospel. Plainly stated, I don't think Christmas falls under the jurisdiction of the context of what Paul is describing in Romans 14 at all.

Paul was continuesly warning against what was proper and improper behavior being brought into the Church. For instance,

I hope I've made my point clear. If you have any questions, please ask.

Thank you.

Thanks, Eph. As I catch more of this thread, I do see that your point is the confused blending of the pagan holidays along with political and commercial overtones. I do agree completely that Paul was constantly on watch to keep improper behavior from the church, I, personally LOVE the verse about God being our God and we being His people. I can't wait!

However, I do still have to stand by my original point. If you recall, Paul does address "using" pagan things for Christian purposes, and his conclusion still is that if it is done with a clear conscience and with no regard for the pagan diety or idol then there is no sin. For what is an idol but a block of wood or a lump or stone? And do we Christians not know that they have no power?

He was speaking specifically of meat that had been sacrificed to idols and if it was ok for Christians eat it. Does partaking of meat that was sacrificed to a lump of stone compromise one's purity? It does not, he determines, so long as one does not do it with a worshipful attitude towards the idol.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
1 Corinthians 8:1 - 8 (NKJV)

Therefore, I must conclude that as I celebrate Christmas - knowing full well that rituals of pagan deities or proclamations of [pick a person in church history] or the government or capitalists or anyone at all have no weight in my pure joy of celebrating of my Savior come to Earth incarnate, Emmanuel, God with us, - my conscious is clear.

His,

Sara