Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Ukulelemike

Christmas Or No Christmas?

Recommended Posts

To keep the other related thread, Christmas or Xmas, from being hijacked, by me or anyone else, I start this post so we can discuss the merits of keeping or not keeping it.

 

Kitagirl said, in that post, which I shall answer here:

 

 

There is a Bible verse saying that he that regardeth a day regardeth it unto the Lord. If a person is regarding "Christmas" unto the Lord, then there is no condemnation in that.

 

Thus one cannot necessarily say a believer should "not say Christmas". The Bible specificially gives us liberty to celebrate holidays as long as we are honoring the Lord with it.

 

I have often heard this used to justify the keeping of Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc.  The prOBlem is, we have to keep such things in context.

 

The context of, well, really most of Romans, is Christianity as opposed to Judaism. The days being kept or not kept would more refer to Jewish feasts, Pesach, Unleavened Bread, Trumpets, Pentecost, even the Sabbath(s).

 

However, when you consider the numerous commands to NOT do after the heathen nations, to be separate from the world, from the lost, that there can be no joining of the things of God with the things of Satan, who, then, do we justify the keeping of 'holidays' that originated as pagan, heathen holy days, such as Saturnalia, Samhain, Ishtar, Yule, etc? How is doing so NOT a rejection of the command to not be unequally yoked, and separation in general?

 

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." 2Cor 6:14-218

 

In fact, if you read this as I do, the requirement for the Lord to be our Father, is that we come out from among them and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing.

 

Just because the Catholic 'church' took a pagan holy day and declared it to be Christan, doesn't mean its suddenly okay for believers to follow. Since when does the RCC decide what it truth and what isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not Jewish....so I don't celebrate their holidays.   But if you are going to apply this passage to only Jews, then you have to remove it from the context of the church altogether, which means we can do what we like anyway.

 

Using this passage, it says clearly that if we choose to celebrate a holiday, as long as we are celebrating it unto the Lord, it is our liberty to do so.  To not take this verse at face value means you are adding to or removing from Scripture.

 

I'm sure many here celebrate Valentine's Day, another "Catholic" holiday, by appreciating their spouse and thanking God for them.    That is, again, personal liberty given to us by God.

 

Of course, if it is against your conscience to celebrate these holidays, the Bible says you should not celebrate them, because whatever is not of faith is sin.  But the Bible gives those of us who do have faith that we are honoring God in our celebrations the liberty and freedom to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most who celebrate Christmas do so in accord with their own image of Christmas. To some it's a secular holiday revolving around gifts and food. For others it's a Catholic holiday. Some still celebrate the winter solstice instead. Others think Jesus was actually born on December 25. There are numerous combinations of how people view Christmas and choose to celebrate, or not.

 

Most American Christians have take the model of Christmas the RCC created and tweaked it to fit their own personal likes which tend to follow denominational lines, family traditions, or even the current cultural trends.

 

It's basically a non-issue with me. I don't find any more justification for this holiday than most others, nor do I find any more condemnation for this holiday than most others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, understand, if someone wants to celebrate Christmas, that's certainly between them and the Lord. However, one CANNOT ignore the roots and origins of Christmas, any more than they can ignore the origins of Halloween.

 

Christmas is ONLY the date for celebrating the birth of Jesus, because the Catholic church declared it to be so, so as to be able to convince the pagans celebrating the solstice, or yule, or Saturnalia, to feel okay about stepping under their umbrella. That is the ONLY reason. BUt if you're good with that, its between you and the Lord.

 

As well, seeing as how the Bible doesn't even do us the courtesy of telling when His birth was, so that we can properly celebrate it, then it seems as though, well, maybe we aren't meant to celebrate it at all. Except for, like, every day we should be celebrating Jesus in all ways and manners.

 

I have always thought that, while Jesus' birth was certainly important, it was really only incidentally important, because He needed to be born as a human-it was the necessary path to being a man, and thus, the Saviour. Rather than celebrating His birth, we should be celebrating HIm, in ALL ways, and especially His death and resurrection, because that's the whole reason he was born anyways.

 

kermit-meme-112414png_1qq16n1pph2ky139ki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe if it were important to celebrate the birth of Christ the actual time of His birth would have been put in Scripture. There is no record of early Christians celebrating the birth of Christ. The focus has always been upon the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

 

Only a handful even try anymore to twist the evidence around to try and make it seem possible Jesus was born on or about December 25. Most today seem to agree Jesus was likely born in spring, though some still say autumn, but many of the autumn folks have decided to agree with the spring idea, now believing that the pregnancy began in autumn with the delivery in spring.

 

In any event, it's the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus that is the focal point of Scripture, not His birth. It's the Catholics who have much to gain from pointing so often to the birth since that affords them more opportunity to give attention to Mary.

 

Most folks in America today have no clue about the history of Christmas. They know nothing of pagan roots, they don't know about the Catholic connection. Most American holidays today are about very little other than an excuse to have a day off work, to party, to do things they otherwise wouldn't be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe if it were important to celebrate the birth of Christ the actual time of His birth would have been put in Scripture. There is no record of early Christians celebrating the birth of Christ. The focus has always been upon the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

 

Only a handful even try anymore to twist the evidence around to try and make it seem possible Jesus was born on or about December 25. Most today seem to agree Jesus was likely born in spring, though some still say autumn, but many of the autumn folks have decided to agree with the spring idea, now believing that the pregnancy began in autumn with the delivery in spring.

 

Now se, I see it the other way 'round-that Jesus MAY, (Second Opinions chapter 3) have been born in the autumn, because that's when the Passover lambs were born. He died as the Passover Lamb of God, ON Passover, makes sense He would have started that same picture with His birth. Speculation pure and simple, I admit, so don't quote me, as it were. But it DOES make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now se, I see it the other way 'round-that Jesus MAY, (Second Opinions chapter 3) have been born in the autumn, because that's when the Passover lambs were born. He died as the Passover Lamb of God, ON Passover, makes sense He would have started that same picture with His birth. Speculation pure and simple, I admit, so don't quote me, as it were. But it DOES make sense.

Yes, there are still some who hold to this idea. Most of the views on the matter as to whether spring of fall come from studying the feeding of sheep. They try to determine when those shepherds would have been near Bethlehem. Some try to figure out the timing of the census. Even the "experts" often disagree as to the seasonal feedings of the sheep.

 

What most now do agree to is that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. Most agree Jesus wasn't born near December 25th. The main dispute now is whether Jesus was born in spring or fall.

 

If it really mattered, the Holy Ghost would have told us in the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested in the real roots of Kwanzaa, here is a link that will direct you to an article written by a dear friend, brother and 33 Independent Baptist missionary to Africa. He details this total fabrication with real facts. http://gospelweb.net/CultureWar/kwanzaa.htm

Edited by Jim_Alaska

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear the word "Christmas" I can't help but think "hail Mary" because its so catholic. 

 

The courage/insanity it would take for a Pastor to cancel Christmas at his church blows my mind. Yet how on earth could a Pastor say we will not celebrate, no tree, no show, no special services. What if he said I'm going to preach like I do the rest of the year and we will celebrate the "Lord's supper", would the church revolt? One of the women on here said people had gotten SAVED due to the christmas show at her church. Where is the line of compromise for the man of God leading our local churches? Is a little catholic stolen idol worship okay if people get saved? 

 

On top of that how does Grandpa tell the kids he didn't buy them something for Christmas? 

 

If the catholics had said on May 19th, Jesus healed a leper would we be celebrating that day? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear the word "Christmas" I can't help but think "hail Mary" because its so catholic. 

 

The courage/insanity it would take for a Pastor to cancel Christmas at his church blows my mind. Yet how on earth could a Pastor say we will not celebrate, no tree, no show, no special services. What if he said I'm going to preach like I do the rest of the year and we will celebrate the "Lord's supper", would the church revolt? One of the women on here said people had gotten SAVED due to the christmas show at her church. Where is the line of compromise for the man of God leading our local churches? Is a little catholic stolen idol worship okay if people get saved? 

 

On top of that how does Grandpa tell the kids he didn't buy them something for Christmas? 

 

If the catholics had said on May 19th, Jesus healed a leper would we be celebrating that day? 

Thanks for the comment on the courage to cancel Christmas at a church-I have done that very thing. Oh, we sing the songs, the good ones, but they're good any time. But nothing else. No tree, no decoration, no "Christmas" sermon-well, let me revise that, I do talk about the actual birth of Jesus, and why we don't celebrate, talk about some of the real, biblical timing of events, as much as scripture gives us, etc. So I use it as an opportunity to educate people.

 

As for how grandpa, (me) tells the kids he doesn't buy them gifts for Christmas, well, I just do, and you know what? They still love me. We haven't had the actual conversation yet, so they prOBably just think Grandpa is poor or a cheapskate, but they still love me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comment on the courage to cancel Christmas at a church-I have done that very thing. Oh, we sing the songs, the good ones, but they're good any time. But nothing else. No tree, no decoration, no "Christmas" sermon-well, let me revise that, I do talk about the actual birth of Jesus, and why we don't celebrate, talk about some of the real, biblical timing of events, as much as scripture gives us, etc. So I use it as an opportunity to educate people.

 

As for how grandpa, (me) tells the kids he doesn't buy them gifts for Christmas, well, I just do, and you know what? They still love me. We haven't had the actual conversation yet, so they prOBably just think Grandpa is poor or a cheapskate, but they still love me.

 

:bigshock:  :bigshock:  :bigshock:  :eek  :eek  :eek  :o  :o  :o  

 

I'm speechless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 One of the women on here said people had gotten SAVED due to the christmas show at her church. Where is the line of compromise for the man of God leading our local churches? Is a little catholic stolen idol worship okay if people get saved? 

 

 

Well, that "one of the women" would be me.  If you don't like Christmas, that's good for you.  But to disrespect people getting saved when they come to church and hear some kids sing about Christ is a little out of line, don't you think?

 

Assuming that we are stealing catholic idol worship is going a bit too far, as well. Until you've attended our church and seen/heard what our kids present to their families and the rest of the congregation, you really need to have a care what you intimate.

 

Whether you folks (and that means others, not just you, MC) like it or not, we use Christmas time as a tool to witness.  And we do it on a SUNday...a day of the week named after a false god.  Unless and until folks change the names of the weeks and months - named after gods as a form of worship to them - don't diss churches that are reaching people for Christ on Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a church that didn't celebrate Christmas due to pastoral direction... But most of the people had it privately at home anyways.

And some of my folks do, as well. I have made clear what Christmas stems from, but I also know that you con't convince people, the Lord must, and its up to them to listen or not.

My old pastor used to say, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".  It took me time to be willing to hear conviction on Christmas and Halloween and such, I didn't turn from them the first time I heard someone preach against them. And it wasn't, ultimately, someone's preaching that made the final difference, it was my willingness to listen and studiy it out myself. I stood on the shoulders of others, but I opened the books and read and that worked with the Spirit of God speaking.

 

So I don't seek to 'change' anyone's mind-I can't. I seek to give the truth, so no one can one day claim they didn't know. If people are to be ignorant, they will be willingly ignorant because they ignore the truth and refuse to look into it themselves. To me, it seems a simple issue of separation. And its not comparable to the names of the days of the week, because we don't have much power over them, do we? I don't go to church BECAUSE it's SUNday, I do because its the FIRST day, and that's the day Jesus rose from the grave and met with His disciples, and its the day the early church met, or at least, the only day specifically mentioned as a day they met, at least the one time. But we celebrate Christmas BECAUSE the Catholic church declared Jesus to have been born that day, and for no other reason would we ever have done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That might be why you celebrated Christmas in the past, but that isn't why we do.  And, noted that you don't go to church on SUNday because it's Sunday but rather the first day, the fact remains that you and I and everyone else call the days of the week and the months of the year by the names that pagans gave them in worship of their deities.  Same/same.  There are people who have created their own calendars because of that very thing. So, yes, we can control them if we want to. It's just easier not to.

 

You don't want to celebrate the birth of Christ? Don't do it.  But don't condemn those who do by trying to make them feel like they are being pagan (that's not to anyone specifically, it's to whomever would continue to say that people are idol worshiping or following Catholicism).

 

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.  Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord doth not regard it...."

 

That would include celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25.  Accusing someone of being pagan, following paganism, following Catholicism (I know, same/same), or worshiping idols ignores Romans 14:5, 6.  And, no, it's not about eating...the next part of  verse 6 is, but this is specifically about days. 

 

Just FYI - I've looked deeply into this, so please know that I'm not speaking from ignorance of "facts." We also had a pastor who preached against Christmas - well, calling it Christmas, anyway. And having trees. Well, except his daughter having one in her bedroom at his home (she was a minor, not a visiting adult).

 

We know the history - we have all the books (even the ones that've been proven questionable...). We were more than open to completely doing away with OBserving the day.  But guess what?  After seeking the Lord's face about it, He gave us the liberty to OBserve the birth of Christ.  I'm sure those of you against it won't believe that, but there it is.

 

Funny thing about it: we don't have the liberty to have a tv.  God burdened my hubby about that while he was still living with his parents.  We've never had one.  But we don't condemn folks who have the liberty to have them.  Even though there's a whole lot of paganism, anti-God stuff, etc. on there. Folks might not get the comparison, but it's there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLAIMER:

Happy, and others reading, allow me, before this post, to say that if I sound poor-spiritied, it is not toward you. I was re-reading this and I sound as though I might be directing sentiments to you, but be assured I am not-I am merely passionate about the subject, so please, read it in the spirit meant, and not in my weak and unskilled manner in which I present it.  Thank you.

 

That might be why you celebrated Christmas in the past, but that isn't why we do.  And, noted that you don't go to church on SUNday because it's Sunday but rather the first day, the fact remains that you and I and everyone else call the days of the week and the months of the year by the names that pagans gave them in worship of their deities.  Same/same.  There are people who have created their own calendars because of that very thing. So, yes, we can control them if we want to. It's just easier not to.

 

You don't want to celebrate the birth of Christ? Don't do it.  But don't condemn those who do by trying to make them feel like they are being pagan (that's not to anyone specifically, it's to whomever would continue to say that people are idol worshiping or following Catholicism).

 

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike.  Let every man be persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord doth not regard it...."

 

That would include celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec. 25.  Accusing someone of being pagan, following paganism, following Catholicism (I know, same/same), or worshiping idols ignores Romans 14:5, 6.  And, no, it's not about eating...the next part of  verse 6 is, but this is specifically about days. 

 

Just FYI - I've looked deeply into this, so please know that I'm not speaking from ignorance of "facts." We also had a pastor who preached against Christmas - well, calling it Christmas, anyway. And having trees. Well, except his daughter having one in her bedroom at his home (she was a minor, not a visiting adult).

 

We know the history - we have all the books (even the ones that've been proven questionable...). We were more than open to completely doing away with OBserving the day.  But guess what?  After seeking the Lord's face about it, He gave us the liberty to OBserve the birth of Christ.  I'm sure those of you against it won't believe that, but there it is.

 

Funny thing about it: we don't have the liberty to have a tv.  God burdened my hubby about that while he was still living with his parents.  We've never had one.  But we don't condemn folks who have the liberty to have them.  Even though there's a whole lot of paganism, anti-God stuff, etc. on there. Folks might not get the comparison, but it's there. 

But see, no offense meant, but you're missiong or ignoring the point; before the Catholic church declared ANY day as Jesus birthday, NO believers celebrated His birth on ANY day, and even good followers of Rome didn't do it widely until well into the 6th century, more than 200 years later. But even then, and through mistory, true believers were known specifically for their refusal to participate in any Christmas festivities.

After the founding of America, true believers didn't celebrate Christmas, understanding that it was a Romish construct-it wasn't until much later that first, some in America celebrated it because the crown of England declared it legal, and posted guards to ensure it could be celebrated, (mostly with drinking and gambling, by the way, not with prayers and solemnity), and then later it was pushed primarily for political purposes, as a way to bring Americans back together after the Civil War. And, it wasn't the Bible that caused people in Ameirica to embrace Christmas, it was Longfellow's poem, "A Visit from St. Nick", that drew people's attention to it.

 

Here's a quote from the website, Historytoday.com:

  

In colonial times, Americans of different sects and different national origins kept the holiday (or did not) in ways they carried over from the Old World, Puritans, for instance, attempted to ignore Christmas because the Bible was silent on the topic. Virginia planters took the occasion to feast, dance, gamble, hunt and visit, perpetuating what they believed to be the old Christmas customs in English manors. Even as late as the early nineteenth century, many Americans, churched or unchurched, northerners or southerners, hardly took notice of the holiday at all.

And another:

This new 'revived Christmas of our time' afforded a retreat from the dizzying realities of contemporary life, but cast in contemporary terms. Americans varied old themes and wove new symbols into the received fabric to create something definitively their own. The 'American' holiday enveloped the often contradictory strains of commercialism and artisanship, as well as nostalgia and faith in progress, that defined late nineteenth-century culture. Its relative lack of theological or Biblical authority – what had made it anathema to the Puritans – ironically allowed Christmas to emerge as a highly ecumenical event in a land of pluralism. It became a moment of idealized national self-definition.

 

Notice the part I made bold: The very reason that the early believers, and more than just the puritans, by the way, rejected Christmas-lack of any authority, and, unmentioned, the fact that it was of Romish origins, was exactly the reason it was able to so well cross theological, as well as non-religious, lines.

 

So I assert again, the ONLY reason there is a Christmas to celebrate at all, something early believers rejected completely, is because the church of Rome created it, based upon pagan origins, and welcoming most of the pagan practices, to include trees, wreaths, gift-giving, particularly to children, (from Juvenalia), and the specific date.

 

It is only in these last of days that true believers have opened themselves to traditions of men and rulers which for 1700 years was outright rejected by believers the world over, now that we have time and money and ease to consider fivilous things and declare them holy, thanks to ungodly Popes, whoi we claim to otherwise reject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word “Sunday” does not appear in the Bible. The Holy Ghost was so careful with idol worship and names “the first day of the week” is used, and later “the Lord's day”. This didn't happen by accident and its an example for us to follow.

 

In this area of the USA no one brings in items formerly used in the worship of the Sun, Saturn, Thor, etc. for use on Sunday when worshiping Jesus and the Father. However at Christmas, trees, wreaths, red and green items, etc are brought into Churches and they was used in the worshiping of idols. That's why the comparison falls short. If Churches had Suns hanging on the walls then it would be a different story. Regarding a day unto the Lord by using items formerly used in idol worshiping defeats the purpose of regarding the day.

 

Would using Sun idols on Sunday make using idols for false worship on Christmas okay? Wouldn't that just defile the first day of week or the Lord's day? Aren't we talking about 2 Corinthians 6:15?

 

The 25th is the tradition of men. No where is the date or day of week recorded in the Old or New Testaments. We all know how Jesus wasn't happy over the traditions of men in his day would he treat us differently?

 

No one is against children praising Jesus in song. No one is condemning people getting saved. No one was saying women are in control of Church services. Men of God referrers to Pastors, Preachers, etc.

 

From what I've read it started out for us Americans as children dressing the parts of Jesus birth. Next the trees came in and wreaths, Santa Claus, and so forth and so on. At what point are we going to return to the old pathways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said anything about women being in control of church services?  

 

We don't worship any idols.  You can think they are all you want. That's your choice.  But to accuse others of doing so is playing the part of God.  

 

(and, BTW - I'm neither missing nor ignoring the point. As I said, I know the history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 38 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...