Do You Celebrate Christmas?

[secularhermit]

Carnivals! Another celebration few months ago...

 

[Agricola]

The images didn't show. Let's try that again.


First the actual carving.

View attachment 94014

Secondly, this was drawn by an artist who both observed and studied the carving.

View attachment 94015

This ancient Sumerian carving isn't an Asherah tree or any such thing. It's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Notice there's the fruit tree, the serpent, a woman and another figure - either a man or a demon-type? This is clearly an inverted version of the Fall of Man where the Fall was said to bring Enlightenment to creation, not sin and death. "Did God really say...?" Every ancient culture has some form of serpent worship (evil seen as good, good seen as evil). Only God's people worshipped the one true God and held to the true natures of good and evil.

The tree here is seen as a 'great'/hugely important moment in human history, a time when man triumphed. See there's low-hanging fruit and it's easy to access. There's no pesky God to tell people not to eat of the fruit. There's nothing to indicate it's a danger at all. The carving speaks to the history of the Garden of Eden, to the story of Adam and Eve and God and the serpent, to the Fall of Man. But this is the pagan version of the Genesis account, where good is seen as evil and evil is seen as good. It has absolutely zilch, nothing, nada to do with Christmas trees.

This was an artifact recovered from Gobekli Tepe, a 12,000 year old ancient temple in Turkey. The references in Bible are to Asherah poles, which were just poles of wood erected next to a shrine, trees could also be used to provide a permanent living pole, palm trees were most likely the popular choice due to height and lack of foliage.

Problem is people go on websites like the Chick Tract and King James Onlyist sites and find some bizzare over the top rants with all these so called "facts" and like many sheep, they think what they are hearing is good and do not check the facts.
Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe

 

[kaylagrl]

*
*
**
*
*
Ah-haa! Now we can see who all of the 'legalists' are.





LOL

Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way
Oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh.
Hey
Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way
Oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh.
Dashing through the snow, in a one horse one sleigh
over the Hills we go, laughing all the way
bells on bob tails ring
making spirits bright
what fun it is to ride and sing
this sleighing song tonight
Ooooooooooooooooooooh
[or OY]
Jingle bells, jingle bells, jingle all the way
Oh what fun it is to ride in a one horse open sleigh
OY!


Sorry. I LOVE SNOW!

​

SATANIST!!! Sleighs and snow are clearly not mentioned in Scripture!! And jingling of bells only attracts attention to yourself which is also ungodly!

 

[JesusistheChrist]

For those who confuse such things as OBEDIENCE, SELFLESSNESS AND LOVE for "legalism":

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/104144-christmas-14.html#post1820714

 

[kaylagrl]

Here's just one example of WHY, so you might want to read this...

The True Origin of Christmas

ARGUMENT NUMBER 1: CHRISTMAS IS COMMERCIALIZED AND MATERIALISTIC... If we use this argument as a legitimate reason for discarding the entire celebration of Christ's birth at Christmas, it would follow that we would end up having to throw out everything--even our Bibles and our wives or husbands. Why? Because Satan and man distort and ruins everything in life--the Bible, sex, marriage, the church, food--everything. Name one thing that Satan doesn't ruin. We don't throw things out just because the world misuses or distorts them.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 2: SCRIPTURE DOESN'T AUTHORIZE IT...This is what we could legitimately call hyperliteralism in the use of Scripture. Such an approach completely misses the spirit and intent of the Bible. Hyperliteralism (or letterism) is an intense devotion to the details of the Bible in such a way that one misses the spirit and essential thrust of a passage. Mountains are made out of mole hills and the truth is missed. One is busy counting the number of letters in a sentence rather than listening to its instruction.

If we applied this argument consistently, we would need to discontinue the use of overheads, musical instruments, hymnals, chorus books, the church building, pews, Sunday school, Christian schools, and many other things. Further, there could be no special services or seasons to commemorate things God has done as with Thanksgiving or a dedication service for a new building.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 3: SCRIPTURE FORBIDS IT...What Colossians 2:16-17 forbids is the celebration of religious seasons or holy days when they have been prescribed as religious duty and necessary for holiness or spirituality.

In this passage, the Apostle is talking about the Old Testament festivals which were shadows of the person and work of Christ--but Christ has now come. To continue to celebrate them is to dishonor the fact of His coming, or to act as though He were not enough for salvation or spirituality. Note what the Apostle says, "let no one act as your judge in regard to . . ." He is saying don't let anyone tell you these things are requirements for fellowship with God. They were only shadows of the person and work of Christ, and He has not only come and fulfilled those shadows, but He is totally sufficient.
Colossians 2:16 and 17 in no way forbids believers from commemorating something such as the birth of Christ if it is done out of love, devotion, and the joy the season gives when used as a way of focusing on the Savior and not as a religious duty. The issue is not the observance, but the reason, the attitudes and the spirit in which it is done.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 4: CHRISTMAS TRADITIONS ARE FROM PAGANISM...(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago

The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 5: UNCERTAINTY OF THE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH....By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?

1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.


ames Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 6: CHRISTMAS MEANS "CHRIST'S MASS"...Christ + mass, can also mean "a large number or quantity." It can also mean simply a mass of religious services in commemoration of the birth of Christ. In other words, mass stands for festival involving a number of religious activities, and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist.

Further, even if the term originally referred to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist, it long ago lost that connotation and is really not an issue.


I can do this alllll day long!!

 

[kaylagrl]

How can you support a day that breeds materialism in hundreds of millions of children and be against materialism at the same time?

Every day breeds materialism in children.Do you have kids yourself?Ever watch any of the kiddie channels on tv?! Sell,sell,sell plastic junk from China.A child getting gifts once a year is not materialism.If you get the most expensive,hot,got to have it now toy then yes that teaching your child to be materialistic.But we knew what our parents could afford and we were thankful for the gifts we did get.Usually those gifts included clothes we needed for school and always a new outfit to wear to church.We loved it.
My nephews have been raised the same way.One year my mother put one of their gifts in an empty box of Coca Cola so she could wrap it.When my nephew,around 8yrs old,opened it he saw the cans of Coke.He assumed he'd been given a box of Coke.He said "well Im not suppose to drink sodas but maybe I could just have one once in a while."We all cracked up laughing but we said later how he accepted the gift was so sweet.He didnt want to hurt anyones feelings.He didnt throw a fit that there was no toy,so he thought,he was as sweet as he could be.It all in how you raise them.So no,Christmas is no more materialistic than any other day of the year.I got to the store all the time and see bratty kids flopped on the floor screaming for some toy and telling their parents they hate them.You raise them that way thats your fault.We were taught better.

 

[kaylagrl]

For those who confuse such things as OBEDIENCE, SELFLESSNESS AND LOVE for "legalism":

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/104144-christmas-14.html#post1820714

ARGUMENT NUMBER 1: CHRISTMAS IS COMMERCIALIZED AND MATERIALISTIC... If we use this argument as a legitimate reason for discarding the entire celebration of Christ's birth at Christmas, it would follow that we would end up having to throw out everything--even our Bibles and our wives or husbands. Why? Because Satan and man distort and ruins everything in life--the Bible, sex, marriage, the church, food--everything. Name one thing that Satan doesn't ruin. We don't throw things out just because the world misuses or distorts them.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 2: SCRIPTURE DOESN'T AUTHORIZE IT...This is what we could legitimately call hyperliteralism in the use of Scripture. Such an approach completely misses the spirit and intent of the Bible. Hyperliteralism (or letterism) is an intense devotion to the details of the Bible in such a way that one misses the spirit and essential thrust of a passage. Mountains are made out of mole hills and the truth is missed. One is busy counting the number of letters in a sentence rather than listening to its instruction.

If we applied this argument consistently, we would need to discontinue the use of overheads, musical instruments, hymnals, chorus books, the church building, pews, Sunday school, Christian schools, and many other things. Further, there could be no special services or seasons to commemorate things God has done as with Thanksgiving or a dedication service for a new building.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 3: SCRIPTURE FORBIDS IT...What Colossians 2:16-17 forbids is the celebration of religious seasons or holy days when they have been prescribed as religious duty and necessary for holiness or spirituality.

In this passage, the Apostle is talking about the Old Testament festivals which were shadows of the person and work of Christ--but Christ has now come. To continue to celebrate them is to dishonor the fact of His coming, or to act as though He were not enough for salvation or spirituality. Note what the Apostle says, "let no one act as your judge in regard to . . ." He is saying don't let anyone tell you these things are requirements for fellowship with God. They were only shadows of the person and work of Christ, and He has not only come and fulfilled those shadows, but He is totally sufficient.
Colossians 2:16 and 17 in no way forbids believers from commemorating something such as the birth of Christ if it is done out of love, devotion, and the joy the season gives when used as a way of focusing on the Savior and not as a religious duty. The issue is not the observance, but the reason, the attitudes and the spirit in which it is done.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 4: CHRISTMAS TRADITIONS ARE FROM PAGANISM...(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago

The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 5: UNCERTAINTY OF THE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH....By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?

1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.


ames Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 6: CHRISTMAS MEANS "CHRIST'S MASS"...Christ + mass, can also mean "a large number or quantity." It can also mean simply a mass of religious services in commemoration of the birth of Christ. In other words, mass stands for festival involving a number of religious activities, and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist.

Further, even if the term originally referred to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist, it long ago lost that connotation and is really not an issue.

Somebody will get it sooner or later.All of us who celebrate Christmas,the answers are right here!

 

[Hizikyah]

I can do this alllll day long!!

I cant I have to log soon!

The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised Edition, by Zondervan Publishing, on page 222

CHRISTIAN YEAR, THE. The early Christians who were mainly Jews were used not only to keeping one day in the week as separate but also to marking the year with certain religious festivals, notably Passover, Tabernacles, and Pentecost. From early times Christians kept a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. This was held at Passover time and was finally fixed on the Sunday following Passover. Pentecost was then celebrated at the appropriate time; the fifty days between the two were days of joy and rejoicing. The choice of 25 December (in the East, 6 January) for the birth of Christ is almost certainly because that day was the great pagan day of honor to the sun, and in Rome in the fourth century it was transformed into a Christian festival. CHRISTMAS. The English name for the Feast of the Nativity of Christ kept on 25 December by the Western Church. There is no evidence of a Feast of the Nativity before the fourth century, except possibly among the Basilidians. Theearliestmentionof25 December is in the Philocalian Calendar, compiledin354, which cites its observance in Rome in 336. It would not appear to have been celebrated in Antioch until approximately 375. By380 it was being observed in Constantinople, and by 430 in Alexandria. It was still unknown in Jerusalem early in the fifth century t was not until the sixth century that the Nativity was finally detached from 6 January and celebrated on 25 December. By the middle of the fifth century it was being gradually observed throughout East and West. The Armenians still observe 6 January, the closely related Feast of the Epiphany, as Christmas Day. There is no authoritative historical evidence as to the day or month of Christ’s birth in Jerusalem. 25 December was the date of a Roman pagan festival inaugurated in 274 as the birth day of the unconquered sun which at the winter solstice begins again to show an increase in light. Sometime before 336 the Church in Rome, unable to stamp out this pagan festival, spiritualized it as the Feast of the Nativity of the Sun of Righteousness.

 

[Tintin]

This was an artifact recovered from Gobekli Tepe, a 12,000 year old ancient temple in Turkey. The references in Bible are to Asherah poles, which were just poles of wood erected next to a shrine, trees could also be used to provide a permanent living pole, palm trees were most likely the popular choice due to height and lack of foliage.

Problem is people go on websites like the Chick Tract and King James Onlyist sites and find some bizzare over the top rants with all these so called "facts" and like many sheep, they think what they are hearing is good and do not check the facts.
Göbekli Tepe

Göbekli Tepe

Gobekli Tepe is a seriously fascinating archaeological site and I would love to visit there one day, but it was only recently unearthed. The site is much younger than 12,000 years old, but from a very early time period, maybe not long after the dispersal at the tower of Babel (roughly 4,200 years ago). The carving I considered was from an early time period as well, but of Sumerian origin. The artifact isn't from Gobekli Tepe. It was rediscovered at least 150, maybe 200 years ago.

 

[JesusistheChrist]

ARGUMENT NUMBER 1: CHRISTMAS IS COMMERCIALIZED AND MATERIALISTIC... If we use this argument as a legitimate reason for discarding the entire celebration of Christ's birth at Christmas, it would follow that we would end up having to throw out everything--even our Bibles and our wives or husbands. Why? Because Satan and man distort and ruins everything in life--the Bible, sex, marriage, the church, food--everything. Name one thing that Satan doesn't ruin. We don't throw things out just because the world misuses or distorts them.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 2: SCRIPTURE DOESN'T AUTHORIZE IT...This is what we could legitimately call hyperliteralism in the use of Scripture. Such an approach completely misses the spirit and intent of the Bible. Hyperliteralism (or letterism) is an intense devotion to the details of the Bible in such a way that one misses the spirit and essential thrust of a passage. Mountains are made out of mole hills and the truth is missed. One is busy counting the number of letters in a sentence rather than listening to its instruction.

If we applied this argument consistently, we would need to discontinue the use of overheads, musical instruments, hymnals, chorus books, the church building, pews, Sunday school, Christian schools, and many other things. Further, there could be no special services or seasons to commemorate things God has done as with Thanksgiving or a dedication service for a new building.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 3: SCRIPTURE FORBIDS IT...What Colossians 2:16-17 forbids is the celebration of religious seasons or holy days when they have been prescribed as religious duty and necessary for holiness or spirituality.

In this passage, the Apostle is talking about the Old Testament festivals which were shadows of the person and work of Christ--but Christ has now come. To continue to celebrate them is to dishonor the fact of His coming, or to act as though He were not enough for salvation or spirituality. Note what the Apostle says, "let no one act as your judge in regard to . . ." He is saying don't let anyone tell you these things are requirements for fellowship with God. They were only shadows of the person and work of Christ, and He has not only come and fulfilled those shadows, but He is totally sufficient.
Colossians 2:16 and 17 in no way forbids believers from commemorating something such as the birth of Christ if it is done out of love, devotion, and the joy the season gives when used as a way of focusing on the Savior and not as a religious duty. The issue is not the observance, but the reason, the attitudes and the spirit in which it is done.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 4: CHRISTMAS TRADITIONS ARE FROM PAGANISM...(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago

The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 5: UNCERTAINTY OF THE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH....By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?

1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.


ames Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 6: CHRISTMAS MEANS "CHRIST'S MASS"...Christ + mass, can also mean "a large number or quantity." It can also mean simply a mass of religious services in commemoration of the birth of Christ. In other words, mass stands for festival involving a number of religious activities, and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist.

Further, even if the term originally referred to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist, it long ago lost that connotation and is really not an issue.

Somebody will get it sooner or later.All of us who celebrate Christmas,the answers are right here!

This response did nothing in relation to addressing what I said in my post that I linked to...and I'm not the least bit surprised.

 

[Marian29]

What about Santa Claus in Jerusalem?... For the record, I'm not against Peace at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8adnwBhhNhw

 

[kaylagrl]

I cant I have to log soon!

The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised Edition, by Zondervan Publishing, on page 222

CHRISTIAN YEAR, THE. The early Christians who were mainly Jews were used not only to keeping one day in the week as separate but also to marking the year with certain religious festivals, notably Passover, Tabernacles, and Pentecost. From early times Christians kept a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. This was held at Passover time and was finally fixed on the Sunday following Passover. Pentecost was then celebrated at the appropriate time; the fifty days between the two were days of joy and rejoicing. The choice of 25 December (in the East, 6 January) for the birth of Christ is almost certainly because that day was the great pagan day of honor to the sun, and in Rome in the fourth century it was transformed into a Christian festival. CHRISTMAS. The English name for the Feast of the Nativity of Christ kept on 25 December by the Western Church. There is no evidence of a Feast of the Nativity before the fourth century, except possibly among the Basilidians. Theearliestmentionof25 December is in the Philocalian Calendar, compiledin354, which cites its observance in Rome in 336. It would not appear to have been celebrated in Antioch until approximately 375. By380 it was being observed in Constantinople, and by 430 in Alexandria. It was still unknown in Jerusalem early in the fifth century t was not until the sixth century that the Nativity was finally detached from 6 January and celebrated on 25 December. By the middle of the fifth century it was being gradually observed throughout East and West. The Armenians still observe 6 January, the closely related Feast of the Epiphany, as Christmas Day. There is no authoritative historical evidence as to the day or month of Christ’s birth in Jerusalem. 25 December was the date of a Roman pagan festival inaugurated in 274 as the birth day of the unconquered sun which at the winter solstice begins again to show an increase in light. Sometime before 336 the Church in Rome, unable to stamp out this pagan festival, spiritualized it as the Feast of the Nativity of the Sun of Righteousness.

Ok time out from discussion...you have to log soon?

 

[kaylagrl]

This response did nothing in relation to addressing what I said in my post that I linked to...and I'm not the least bit surprised.

It is heartbreaking...to those of us whose hearts haven't been hardened due to SELFISHNESS, that is.

IOW, the argument for celebrating "Christ Mass" from professing Christians basically goes like this:

"Yeah, there certainly are PAGAN ORIGINS AND PAGAN INFLUENCES AND PRACTICES attached to 'Christ Mass', BUT that's not why I celebrate 'Christ Mass', so I am at liberty or free to do so...YOU JUDGMENTAL LEGALIST!"

Here's what these SELFISH people fail to realize or possibly to even consider:

I Corinthians chapter 8

[1] Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
[2] And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
[3] But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
[7] Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
[8] But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
[9] But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
[10] For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
[11] And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
[12] But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
[13] Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

IOW, I suppose that all of us who profess to know Christ here realize that "to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" and that we can therefore rightly say:

"WHO CARES THAT THERE ARE PAGAN ORIGINS AND PAGAN INFLUENCES AND PRACTICES ATTACHED TO 'CHRIST MASS'...I AM NOT REFLECTING UPON ANY OF THE SAME IN MYCELEBRATION OF 'CHRIST MASS', BUT I AM ONLY REFLECTING UPON THE 'ONE GOD, THE FATHER' AND THE BIRTH OF HIS SON, THE 'LORD JESUS CHRIST'!"

I mean, on the surface, that sounds both legitimate and reasonable, doesn't it? Sure, it does. HOWEVER, such a "knowledge", IF NOT COUPLED TOGETHER WITH LOVE, only "puffs us up" IN THAT IT DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT HOW OUR "LIBERTIES" OR "FREEDOMS" IN CHRIST MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT OTHERS...even as Paul described in what I just quoted. IOW, what about "the weak brother" and his "weak conscience"? I mean, what if somebody who is "weak in the faith" is confronted with the reality that there are PAGAN ORIGINS AND PAGAN INFLUENCES AND PRACTICES attached to "Christ Mass" and the reality that Jesus Christ was NOT born on December 25th? Could not such possibly "shipwreck" his faith...especially when he sees those who are "strong in the faith" partaking in the same? Yes, it could...not that too many people here seem to give a damn about the same. Furthermore, what about the unbeliever? I mean, if he/she observes MILLIONS of professing Christians celebrating a day which ORIGINATED IN PAGANISM and still has MUCH PAGANISM attached to it, why should he/she consider that said Christians are really any different than THE PAGANS? Ironically, I've recently spent about 9 years on a different forum which is comprised mostly of members who are hardcore atheists and the topic of "Christ Mass" came up multiple times there during different years. Yep, there would almost always be some well-intentioned (?) professing Christian who would come along and wish everybody there a "Merry Christmas"...only to be rebuked, and rightly so, BY THE ATHEISTS in that "Christ Mass" has so many PAGAN ORIGINS, INFLUENCES AND PRACTICES attached to it. The aforementioned irony is that when I sided with the position of THE ATHEISTS, it actually gained me inroads with them to explain the gospel to them.

Anyhow, personally, I'm happy to see that a decent section of professing Christendom is beginning to shun the celebration of "Christ Mass" or has already done so. IOW, I'm happy to see that, like both Christ and Paul, some professing Christians actually care more about OTHERS than they do about THEMSELVES and their "liberties/freedoms".

Hey, somebody needed to say it, so it might as well be me...




What I posted....ARGUMENT NUMBER 4: CHRISTMAS TRADITIONS ARE FROM PAGANISM...(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago

The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.

 

[kaylagrl]

I cant I have to log soon!

The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Revised Edition, by Zondervan Publishing, on page 222

CHRISTIAN YEAR, THE. The early Christians who were mainly Jews were used not only to keeping one day in the week as separate but also to marking the year with certain religious festivals, notably Passover, Tabernacles, and Pentecost. From early times Christians kept a commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. This was held at Passover time and was finally fixed on the Sunday following Passover. Pentecost was then celebrated at the appropriate time; the fifty days between the two were days of joy and rejoicing. The choice of 25 December (in the East, 6 January) for the birth of Christ is almost certainly because that day was the great pagan day of honor to the sun, and in Rome in the fourth century it was transformed into a Christian festival. CHRISTMAS. The English name for the Feast of the Nativity of Christ kept on 25 December by the Western Church. There is no evidence of a Feast of the Nativity before the fourth century, except possibly among the Basilidians. Theearliestmentionof25 December is in the Philocalian Calendar, compiledin354, which cites its observance in Rome in 336. It would not appear to have been celebrated in Antioch until approximately 375. By380 it was being observed in Constantinople, and by 430 in Alexandria. It was still unknown in Jerusalem early in the fifth century t was not until the sixth century that the Nativity was finally detached from 6 January and celebrated on 25 December. By the middle of the fifth century it was being gradually observed throughout East and West. The Armenians still observe 6 January, the closely related Feast of the Epiphany, as Christmas Day. There is no authoritative historical evidence as to the day or month of Christ’s birth in Jerusalem. 25 December was the date of a Roman pagan festival inaugurated in 274 as the birth day of the unconquered sun which at the winter solstice begins again to show an increase in light. Sometime before 336 the Church in Rome, unable to stamp out this pagan festival, spiritualized it as the Feast of the Nativity of the Sun of Righteousness.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 5: UNCERTAINTY OF THE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH....By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?

1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.


James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months.

 

[AbbeyJoy]

I do celebrate Christmas. It's one way I both worship Christ and remember Him coming to earth to live as one of us, limiting Himself for our sake. Suffering but living a life of purity and dying horribly but rising to new life, so that we might be reconciled back to our Heavenly Father.

Me too even though Christ wasn't born on Christmas we still celebrate his birth and that he was the ultimate gift to us

 

[Marian29]

Any day is a good day to celebrate anything about Christ. Any time is a good time to hear anything that the bible talks about, and the bible talks about the birth of Christ. Do I believe it is the actual day of His birth? I do not, but it makes no difference to me.

So what about the tree? Listen, it is ok to have worldly traditions and holidays, as long as they are not evil. Just because it is worldly- that itself does not mean it is wrong. It's ok to have a birthday cake on someone's birthday. But it is evil to participate in New Orleans martigraw.

So, yes, Im celebrating Jesus- that what Christmas means to me.

Sorry, I do not agree a 'happy face' justify a pagan celebration.

 

[Marian29]

Me too even though Christ wasn't born on Christmas we still celebrate his birth and that he was the ultimate gift to us

There are endless authentic forms to worship Christ... simply Believing in Him is one of them.

 

[Marian29]

Jesus was not born on December 25th. This date was designated a pagan Rome in the fourth century alliance. The first intention was to Christianize paganism and Christianity paganize, according to the Jewish calendar Jesus was born in September or October.

 

[john832]

ARGUMENT NUMBER 5: UNCERTAINTY OF THE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH....By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?

1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.


James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months.

This doesn't address the course of Abijah, the timing of the pregnancy of Elizabeth and the pregnancy of Mary. Neither does it address the timing of His death versus the 33-1/2 years of His life.

 

[SeaBass]

Since no one seems to be reading,here it is again....




ARGUMENT NUMBER 1: CHRISTMAS IS COMMERCIALIZED AND MATERIALISTIC... If we use this argument as a legitimate reason for discarding the entire celebration of Christ's birth at Christmas, it would follow that we would end up having to throw out everything--even our Bibles and our wives or husbands. Why? Because Satan and man distort and ruins everything in life--the Bible, sex, marriage, the church, food--everything. Name one thing that Satan doesn't ruin. We don't throw things out just because the world misuses or distorts them.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 2: SCRIPTURE DOESN'T AUTHORIZE IT...This is what we could legitimately call hyperliteralism in the use of Scripture. Such an approach completely misses the spirit and intent of the Bible. Hyperliteralism (or letterism) is an intense devotion to the details of the Bible in such a way that one misses the spirit and essential thrust of a passage. Mountains are made out of mole hills and the truth is missed. One is busy counting the number of letters in a sentence rather than listening to its instruction.

If we applied this argument consistently, we would need to discontinue the use of overheads, musical instruments, hymnals, chorus books, the church building, pews, Sunday school, Christian schools, and many other things. Further, there could be no special services or seasons to commemorate things God has done as with Thanksgiving or a dedication service for a new building.

ARGUMENT NUMBER 3: SCRIPTURE FORBIDS IT...What Colossians 2:16-17 forbids is the celebration of religious seasons or holy days when they have been prescribed as religious duty and necessary for holiness or spirituality.

In this passage, the Apostle is talking about the Old Testament festivals which were shadows of the person and work of Christ--but Christ has now come. To continue to celebrate them is to dishonor the fact of His coming, or to act as though He were not enough for salvation or spirituality. Note what the Apostle says, "let no one act as your judge in regard to . . ." He is saying don't let anyone tell you these things are requirements for fellowship with God. They were only shadows of the person and work of Christ, and He has not only come and fulfilled those shadows, but He is totally sufficient.
Colossians 2:16 and 17 in no way forbids believers from commemorating something such as the birth of Christ if it is done out of love, devotion, and the joy the season gives when used as a way of focusing on the Savior and not as a religious duty. The issue is not the observance, but the reason, the attitudes and the spirit in which it is done.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 4: CHRISTMAS TRADITIONS ARE FROM PAGANISM...(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago

The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 5: UNCERTAINTY OF THE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH....By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?

1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.


ames Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months.


ARGUMENT NUMBER 6: CHRISTMAS MEANS "CHRIST'S MASS"...Christ + mass, can also mean "a large number or quantity." It can also mean simply a mass of religious services in commemoration of the birth of Christ. In other words, mass stands for festival involving a number of religious activities, and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist.

Further, even if the term originally referred to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist, it long ago lost that connotation and is really not an issue.

I addressed some of your points in my post #39.
Your points have obvious flaws.