- Nov 28, 2003
- 24,208
- 14,756
- 60
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Enjoy your echo chamber.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.
No, but you were talking about being holy and not having "pagan elements" mixed in with worship.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.
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.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.
So why are you assuming that Christians are doing them?On Christmas, there are other activities that are committed that fall into violating God’s Word.
Not for us, it isn't.That’s why Christmas is a problem.
What - CHRIST's mass?It’s not just the name alone.
So no one cares about Maundy Thursday, or that the feast of the ascension - 10 days after the resurrection - is held on a Thursday?If it was just a day of the week that nobody cared about like Thursday,
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.So those who bring up how the days of the week are pagan as a justification for enjoying Christmas are not thinking logically.
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.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.“
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?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).
No it’s still a lie if the intent is deception.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. A deception is not always a lie.No it’s still a lie if the intent is deception.
I will post this info to you in a PM.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.
FYI the Catholic Encyclopedia is available online.I will post this info to you in a PM.
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.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.
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.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.
No, I did not get it from that source.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.
*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.FYI the Catholic Encyclopedia is available online.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home
One of the biggest Catholic resources on the Internet, containing more than 10,000 articleswww.newadvent.org
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.*Sigh*. If you were to do your own homework, Not all Catholic encyclopedia editions or their dictionaries say the same thing.
Dear sir, either investigate the truth for yourself, or continue to keep acting like you are the know it all scholar.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.
A link to the online Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mithraism. His birth is mentioned but no mention of any date.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:
This is date of celebration of the worship, Sōl Invictus on December 25th can be seen here by Oxford.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
"Its dedication day was 25 December."
If you are following the conversation, you will see that I mention other sources.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 Mithrawww.newadvent.org
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.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.
See the end of post #690 for other sources.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 Mithrawww.newadvent.org
Did you link to anything? Or is it a secret?If you are following the conversation, you will see that I mention other sources.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?