Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Christmas Or No Christmas?


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

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 year Independent Baptist missionary to Africa. He details this total fabrication with real facts. http://gospelweb.net/CultureWar/kwanzaa.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...