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

[Jipsah]

A tree that has decoration on it is just a tree that has decoration on it.
It doesn't suddenly turn into an idol - it has no power to turn into anything. It is people who make objects into idols, not the objects themselves.

Seems like that ought to be self evident, and I reckon it is to anyone other than one who doesn't have some presuppositions to the contrary.

Show me anyone who puts clothes on a Christmas tree.

Too many arms.

A tree is not an idol.

Could be, I reckon, but I personally never met any tree worshippers.

Solomon had many wives because he made treaties with other countries to secure peace.
Foreign wives brought foreign gods into Israel - nothing to do with trees.

Yep.

But you were quoting Jeremiah 10 - trees were cut down to make the ark, the planks of wood were nailed together and the ark was covered with tar and pitch.

The verses in Jeremiah were obviously referring to the making of elaborate furniture, or it reads that way to me.

This is a Christian forum; we're not druids.

Think the market for druids tanked after the Christianization of Britain.

People have read things into Scripture - like "there are 3 gifts mentioned, so there must have been 3 Magi."
Rather like anyone who reads a couple of verses from an OT book, think "that sounds like a Christmas tree; it must be a Christmas tree" - and then use it to berate their fellow Christians for idol worship.

Proves they're literally Holier Than Thou, and who doesn't want that?

Some of us read the nativity story at Christmas - you know, the one foretold in the OT and proclaimed in the Gospels.
Some of us rejoice as the angels rejoiced.
Some of us find ways to share the Good News with non Christians - Christmas is a perfect opportunity of reminding them that it all began with God and is about God.

Preach!

And you should really stop telling me what I should do - and imply that if I do it I am sinning in some way.

That's especially noing (my daughters'abbreviation for "annoying"; rhymes with "boing") when these folks seemmost intent of decided when we must not worship Christ, because some pagans, at some time

Now show me that we have a birth certificate which says that Jesus was born in September, and despite knowing this, we deliberately claim it was in December.
You can't produce one because there is no such thing.
You have been told that Dec 25th was chosen to commemorate when Jesus was born. That is not a lie.

Just for what it's worth, fromthe Encyclopedia Brittanica:

"The Roman Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus dated Jesus’ conception to March 25 (the same date upon which he held that the world was created), which, after nine months in his mother’s womb, would result in a December 25 birth."

"The church in Rome began formally celebrating Christmas on December 25 in 336, during the reign of the emperor Constantine. As Constantine had made Christianity the effective religion of the empire, some have speculated that choosing this date had the political motive of weakening the established pagan celebrations. The date was not widely accepted in the Eastern Empire, where January 6 had been favored, for another half-century, and Christmas did not become a major Christian festival until the 9th century."

I'm sorry but it is not being done in a spirit of love - but in a spirit of "This is what you should do. This is what I have interpreted God's word to mean and if you disobey it you are disobeying God."

It's isn't even his interpretation of God's Word, but that of the sect he has chosen to align with. For instance, I guarantee he didn't come up with the verses from Jeremiah that he holds so dear simply by reading the OT and associating it with Christmas trees on his own. He could have got it off the net, where it's often cited by fringy hyper-fundy groups, or he is a member of one of those groups himself. I 'spect it's the latter, because those groups tend to forbid the observance of any purely Christian feasts, on the basis that only those holidays commanded in the OT are legitimate and that all the rest (Christmas, Eatrer, etc.) are "pagan".

You claimed that Jesus has forbidden us to exchange presents at Christmas because he said "give without expecting a reward".
If you believe that this is what it means, then do it - go and buy clothes for the poor, shelter for the homeless and food for those who use foodbanks. They can't give to you in return, so you'll be doing the right thing.

Maybe why the rescue missions here in the States receive the majority of their year's donations during the Christmas season.

You were talking about non Christians etc sharing our celebration of Christmas; saying that it shouldn't happen because light cannot fellowship with darkness.

Funny, I've never seen many unbelievers at Christmas Mass, oR Lessons and Carols. None that I could vouch for at Korean Christmas Day services, either. Ditto sunrise Easter Mass ( I'm told that worshipping at sunrise is pagan and ought not be allowed. That's another strike against the Koreans again. Not only do they keep Christmas and Easter as Christian holy days, and "bow down" to show respect, but they're very keen on sunrise prayer services as well. At the Korean Anglican I attend, the rector has to roust out 3 days a week to conduct sunrise services.)

There are many things that we do in this world which non Christians also do - shopping, following hobbies, even breathing.
We cannot, and should not, avoid something just because a non Christian also does it - that it ridiculous and impractical.
Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners - he didn't avoid them because they didn't share his faith.

Oh the irony! You say that I have a problem understanding??

Not that I have ever observed.

 

[Jipsah]

I did not write the Bible. God did.

But He's in no way responsible for the illogical and often irrational "meanings" that people often draw from it.

If you put away the practices of Christmas, you will be able to see.

Bosh.

 

[Jipsah]

Aliens are actually demons.

What aliens?

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm so old I first went to Sunday School when FDR was president and I remember his death. It is not old history for me. Have you ever been in a church during a Christmas service? What did they "practice" which you object to? I have and I have never seen Santa Claus, reindeer, a Christmas tree.

We all love you so much @Der Alte. God bless you my most pious friend!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Three Magi is not a "lie." The Bible never states the number explicitly, so three is a possible number (and would make some sense, as they brought three gifts). It might be an assumption, but it's not a lie.

I can see how it may seem like there was three wisemen based on the number of gifts, but the text still does not say. So why make the assumption? An assumption does not mean it is a 100% fact so as to declare it as fact or truth.

In regards to the age of Jesus, the Bible never explicitly states Jesus's age at the time of the meeting. It does say that Herod ordered people under the age of two to be killed, but does that mean Jesus was between the ages of one and two, or could Jesus have been younger and Herod was offering a higher age just to be thorough? We don't know. So again, it might be an assumption, but not a lie.

Matthew 2 says that Jesus is a young child when the wise men visited him In a house.
Luke 2 says Jesus is a babe (baby) when the shepherds visited him in a manger.

The words, "young child” appears 6 times during the time when the wise men were with Herod, during the time of the wise men visiting Jesus, and during the time they departed to Egypt to avoid Herod. The word “babe” does not appear. Obviously a young child is not the same as a babe in this particular context.

So again, the picture that the wise men were visiting Jesus in a manger as a baby is not true. Matthew 2 says it was a house.
Matthew 2 says Jesus was a young child and not a babe when the wise men came to him and worshiped him giving him gifts.
So the picture promoted during Christ-mass today is a lie and not true to what Scripture actually says.

Christmas--the word in English--doesn't show up until around the 11th century AD. That is more than 500 years after it was being celebrated.

Indeed, the majority of people do not even use the term Christmas, or anything that sounds like it. Let's take a look at it in various languages and see how they write the word Christmas:

Spanish: Navidad
Portuguese: Natal
French: Noël
Italian: Natale
German: Weihnachten
Greek: Χριστούγεννα (Christoúgenna)
Chinese: 聖誕節 (Shèngdànjié)
Bengali: বড়দিন (Baṛadina)
Russian: рождество (Rozhdestvo)

One may notice the obvious fact that the above ones, all popular languages, bear no resemblance whatsoever to Christmas. Most derive in some way from the word "birth". The Romance languages, coming from Latin, trace their words for Christmas to the Latin word nativitas, which means birth (and was, in Latin, used as the term for Christmas). The Greek word is a combination of Χριστού ("of christ") and γεννα ("birth"), meaning "birth of Christ." The language with the most native speakers in the world, Chinese, pronounces it Shèngdànjié and the three symbols in it (聖誕節) mean "holy birth festival". The term in Russian seems to come from an earlier word meaning birth.

Being consistent with how God operates, if God had chosen to write the New Testament Scriptures in Greek, the world language, then it is logical to conclude God would continue to operate that way. Meaning, while God can spread His Word to other languages, the New Testament is found primarily in Greek copies today, and not other languages as much. We have more manuscripts for the Bible in Hebrew and Greek than any other book on the planet. Today, the most printed book in history is the English Bible (KJB). The point here is that God knew that English would be the world language, just as Greek once was. God is not trying to bring about the spread humanity over the globe with many languages. That is what the many languages were for. This is why the word “Christ-mass“ is more revealing to its origins. It was created by the Catholic Church and it was never a practice that Jesus or His apostles had celebrated while He was in adult form.

So to try to use the word "Christmas" to refer to any "true origins" of the holiday. Not only do our first records of the word Christmas come substantially later than its celebration, most people don't even refer to it as Christmas.

This is deflection. The word “Christ-mass” still exists and is significant to many English speaking people all over the world. English is the world language and you can see English written on signs everywhere in other countries where English is not their primary language.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What aliens?

I was quoting a post that referred to aliens.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I detect a trace of Gnosticism in that post..

What is your definition of Gnosticism?

I see Gnosticism as a denial of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ (or that the Eternal Word was made flesh), and those who believe they can sin and still be saved. But yeah, unless I made clear dumb statements like that (Which is insanity), I am obviously not claiming such things.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Chapter and verse, King James Only saying this about aliens, pretty please.

Did you ever notice the little quote thingy when people reply? I did not start the alien conversation. Another brought it up and I was replying. So ask them.

As for King James Only: I am not allowed to discuss that here. My hands are tied.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Please realize that I don’t have time to read everyone’s posts, and I am not particularly motivated to do so because most here are not really open to change but they are looking to throw in the smackdown or a hammer of judgment. Nor do I have any motivation to keep this conversation going on forever, either. I do have to get back to devoting more time to my write-up, which is far more important. So have fun attacking me and or the thread OP while I am not here. Perhaps we can do this another time in the future, Lord willing.

Blessings to you all (even if we disagree strongly on this topic).

Tchau, tchau.

 

[Strong in Him]

To all:

Please realize that I don’t have time to read everyone’s posts, and I am not particularly motivated to do so because most here are not really open to change but they are looking to throw in the smackdown or a hammer of judgment. Nor do I have any motivation to keep this conversation going on forever, either. I do have to get back to devoting more time to my write-up, which is far more important. So have fun attacking me and or the thread OP while I am not here.

I hope no one's attacking you.
We are attacking your interpretation of Scripture, appalling theology and lack of reasoning.
If you don't want to answer, so be it.

You are correct about having more important things to do. In fact, this is a 5 year old thread which was resurrected, for some reason.
All the objections to your reasoning were made 5 years ago. And I'm afraid it's you who isn't listening.

 

[prodromos]

I can see how it may seem like there was three wisemen based on the number of gifts, but the text still does not say. So why make the assumption? An assumption does not mean it is a 100% fact so as to declare it as fact or truth.

The Church has faithfully passed down more than just the Scriptures. There were three of them. We know their names.

Matthew 2 says that Jesus is a young child when the wise men visited him In a house.
Luke 2 says Jesus is a babe (baby) when the shepherds visited him in a manger.

The words, "young child” appears 6 times during the time when the wise men were with Herod, during the time of the wise men visiting Jesus, and during the time they departed to Egypt to avoid Herod. The word “babe” does not appear. Obviously a young child is not the same as a babe in this particular context.

When Mary and Joseph presented Jesus at the Temple, He was 40 days old and is referred to as a child. Neither is Jesus referred to as a "young child" in the Greek. There is not a single manuscript that has anything other than simply "child". Once again you bring to light more deficiencies in the KJV, wher the translators have added to God's Word

So again, the picture that the wise men were visiting Jesus in a manger as a baby is not true. Matthew 2 says it was a house.
Matthew 2 says Jesus was a young child and not a babe when the wise men came to him and worshiped him giving him gifts.
So the picture promoted during Christ-mass today is a lie and not true to what Scripture actually says.

Again, you go beyond what the Scriptures state. Jesus could have been anywhere between a few months old and two years. It is true that He was no longer in the stable at the inn in Bethlehem, but you have completely missed the point of the Nativity Scenes, which bring to mind all the events which occured around our Saviour's birth. You conveniently ignore that we also read all the Gospel accounts regarding Christ's birth at this time of year, so it is not like anyone is being misled

Being consistent with how God operates, if God had chosen to write the New Testament Scriptures in Greek, the world language, then it is logical to conclude God would continue to operate that way. Meaning, while God can spread His Word to other languages, the New Testament is found primarily in Greek copies today, and not other languages as much. We have more manuscripts for the Bible in Hebrew and Greek than any other book on the planet. Today, the most printed book in history is the English Bible (KJB). The point here is that God knew that English would be the world language, just as Greek once was. God is not trying to bring about the spread humanity over the globe with many languages. That is what the many languages were for. This is why the word “Christ-mass“ is more revealing to its origins. It was created by the Catholic Church and it was never a practice that Jesus or His apostles had celebrated while He was in adult form.

Sorry, Hebrew was never a 'world language'. You are pretending consistency where there is none. Also, no one translates from the KJV when producing a Bible in another language. They always translate from the Greek and Hebrew where possible.

This is deflection. The word “Christ-mass” still exists and is significant to many English speaking people all over the world. English is the world language and you can see English written on signs everywhere in other countries where English is not their primary language.

English is a terrible language. Having learned another language, it has given me a far greater appreciation of how bad the English actually is.

 

[The Liturgist]

Also, no one translates from the KJV when producing a Bible in another language. They always translate from the Greek and Hebrew where possible.

Actually, if you recall the absurd KJV only movement that kept hijacking threads on ChristianForums until it was effectively banned, my understanding is that the extremist members of that movement, who regard the KJV as uniquely divinely inspired (and in some cases insist on unmodified replica first edition copies without modern spelling or punctuation and with certain typos*) have actually translating the KJV to other languages, since they regard it as the only inspired translation and thus the new standard from which all Bibles must be copied.

This belief system is even more annoying than discredited conspiracy theories about the origin of the New Testament like Peshitta Primacy so I am very thankful there are no longer any more KJV only threads on CF.com at least, a great kindness being granted by our hardworking mods since I joined. Unfortunately printing presses are, to my knowledge, still pumping out KJV translations.

* I Suppofe some infift upon the ufe of the 18th century typefacef where Some letterf are of an unusual Shape where for inftance the glyph “s” lookf like “f”

 

[prodromos]

To all:

Please realize that I don’t have time to read everyone’s posts, and I am not particularly motivated to do so because most here are not really open to change

That sounds an awful lot like you.

but they are looking to throw in the smackdown or a hammer of judgment.

You should read back through many of your own posts

Nor do I have any motivation to keep this conversation going on forever, either.

The thread was dormant for two years, then again for another 3, yet here you are.

I do have to get back to devoting more time to my write-up, which is far more important. So have fun attacking me and or the thread OP while I am not here. Perhaps we can do this another time in the future, Lord willing.

I hope not.

 

[Jipsah]

I was quoting a post that referred to aliens.

You assertd that aliens are demons. To what aliens are you referring? I know of no evidence that any "aliens"exist at all. That places them solidly in the realm of superstition IMO. That's also where I stash the belief that Christians should be forbidden to worship Christ on certain days because those days belong to dead pagans and their imaginary gods.

 

[The Liturgist]

You assertd that aliens are demons. To what aliens are you referring? I know of no evidence that any "aliens"exist at all. That places them solidly in the realm of superstition IMO. That's also where I stash the belief that Christians should be forbidden to worship Christ on certain days because those days belong to dead pagans and their imaginary gods.

Fr. Seraphim Rose was of the opinion that the “alien abductions” reported by people were of a demonic nature, which corresponds with the idea that the existence of aliens, at least aliens and UFOs active on our planet, are superstition, based on Psalm 95:5 LXX, “The gods of the gentiles are demons.” This verse in MT derived psalters like the Coverdale and KJV is “The gods of the gentiles are idols.” Both readings are correct, I think, so one could say that “The gods of the gentiles are idols of demons”, and idolatry is inherently supersitious.

And if you have ever unwittingly encountered (no pun intended) a UFO convention, which was going on at a hotel where I stayed in 1998 or 1999, it is obviously a religion. In some cases perhaps a secondary religion, in the same way someone can profess Christianity while also participating in fraternities of a religious nature, but a religion nonetheless, but not piety, to use the ancient Roman definition of the term, in a manner of speaking, but rather what they called Superstitio.* I recall sitting down in the coffee shop for a meal, and some UFO conference attendees were at the next booth, and a young woman, in her twenties, among them, informed the other members of her party “I’m guided”, as in, prompted to do things by an alien consicience.

If she was honest, such promptings would of course be of a diabolical nature, as superstitions tend to be (I regard even reading the horoscope as something Christians should avoid, because it can distort our mental models and cause us to impute upon the people we meet personality characteristics, attributes and inclinations which are in fact absent or illusory. I myself once experienced spiritual delusion, or prelest as it is known in Eastern Orthodoxy, in this way.

*The Romans regarded the mainstream pagan religions as pious, and Christianity and later Judaism as superstitious, but as the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine later became the fourth government to legalize Christianity, after those of Kerala, Edessa, and Armenia, (and possibly the Sassanians) and the fifth government to make it the state religion under Emperor Theodosius, after Edessa, Armenia, Ethiopia and Georgia (well, Kartvelli, the largest Georgian tribe), not counting Gothic tribes converted to Arianism, which I regard as non Christian and which later conquered Christian lands and severely persecuted them, I define authentic Nicene Christianity as pious, and heretical Christianity and all other religions as superstitious in fact, although I will speak of the piety of, for example, practitioners of Judaism or Sikhism or other religions that share values with Christianity.

 

[RickardoHolmes]

IT has come to my attention that controversially, the church I usually attend for Christmas Eve late service has decided to move their service back to 9 PM on Christmas Eve. This would mean that the service will end around 1030 Pm, not after Midnight when we usually walk out and say "Hey look up in the sky ! Santa's Coming! It is After Midnight ! It is CHRISTMAS !!!! YEA !!!!"

BUT there is a catholic cathedral in walking distance, and they are doing an 11 PM service so we will attend BOTH !!!! Hallelujah and AMEN! And Episcopal High Mass and a Catholic Midnight Mass back to back on Christmas EVE! Now THAT is exciting !!!!!

 

[The Liturgist]

IT has come to my attention that controversially, the church I usually attend for Christmas Eve late service has decided to move their service back to 9 PM on Christmas Eve. This would mean that the service will end around 1030 Pm, not after Midnight when we usually walk out and say "Hey look up in the sky ! Santa's Coming! It is After Midnight ! It is CHRISTMAS !!!! YEA !!!!"

BUT there is a catholic cathedral in walking distance, and they are doing an 11 PM service so we will attend BOTH !!!! Hallelujah and AMEN! And Episcopal High Mass and a Catholic Midnight Mass back to back on Christmas EVE! Now THAT is exciting !!!!!

Now all you need is an Orthodox liturgy on Christmas day to complete the Grand Tour.

 

[Saltyjames]

Nothing about Christmas is scriptural.
It is entirely unholy and in every way absurd from a Biblical perspective.

 

[Strong in Him]

Nothing about Christmas is scriptural.

Apart from the story of Christ's birth; the incarnation.
THAT'S what Christmas means to most of us.

Of course, if a person's idea of Christmas is celebrating a jolly man in a red suit, flying through the air, coming down chimneys, and being able to eat and drink themselves silly; you're right, it's not Scriptural.

 

[Jipsah]

Nothing about Christmas is scriptural.
It is entirely unholy and in every way absurd from a Biblical perspective.

Ever read the Gospel of Luke?