Posted on 12/04/2005 7:27:20 AM PST by DouglasKC
One day, years ago, someone asked me why I kept Christmas. "The Bible says to keep it," I responded. "Somewhere in the Gospel of Luke, it speaks of the nativity scene. An angel told some shepherds that were keeping their sheep in the fields at night that the baby Jesus was born in Bethlehem. I think they went to see Jesus at that time.
"That was the first Christmas! And that's why I keep Christmas, because the Bible supports Christmas, the birthday of Jesus Christ."
"That's not true and here's why," my friend replied.
I soon learned that the Bible didn't teach Christmas. I also found that its origins have nothing to do with the Bible. It was an important lesson about things I'd long assumed to be true.
Just because some 2 billion people—roughly 1 billion Catholics and another billion in Protestant faiths—observe Christmas, does that make it right? Does it really matter one way or the other?
Why do so many people observe it?
If you were asked, "Why do you celebrate Christmas?" how would you respond? Many would say Christmas honors the birthday of Jesus. Others feel that Christmas is a good Christian family get-together. Many do it simply because they've always done it.
Christmas can appear tantalizing to the eye and ear. People appear happy, generous, full of good cheer. Twinkling lights decorate many houses. Santa Claus and his reindeer are pictured as poised to lift off from snow-covered front yards or rooftops, although in the southern hemisphere and tropics there is no December snow. The colorful, peaceful-appearing Christmas scene can be intoxicating, addicting.
Shoppers pack stores, browsing for gifts they hope to buy at bargain-basement prices. Soaring strains of "White Christmas," "Silent Night" or "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer" resonate everywhere.
The December weather of the northern hemisphere might be frightful outside, but the feeling and warmth inside is delightful. Christmas trees with twinkling lights and bright, sparkling ornaments create a mystical and glowing environment. Entire families want to experience the special mystery that only comes with the Christmas season. There is no religious holiday quite like it for the millions everywhere who observe it.
Was Jesus really born on Dec. 25?
But stop and ask yourself: Was Christ really born on Christmas Day? After all, the Bible nowhere tells us the day of His birth.
In fact, most credible secular historical writings tell us that Christmas, more than 200 years after Jesus' death, was considered sinful: "As late as A.D. 245 [the early Catholic theologian] Origen . . . repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, 1910, Vol. 6, p. 293, "Christmas").
In A.D. 354, a Latin chronographer mentioned Christmas, but even then he did not write about it as an observed festival (ibid.).
There is no biblical evidence that Dec. 25 was Jesus' birth date. In fact, the Bible record strongly shows that Jesus couldn't have been born then.
For example, Luke tells us that the shepherds were keeping their sheep in the fields at night when Jesus was born. "And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn. Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:7-8, emphasis added throughout).
But late December is Judea's cold and rainy season. Would shepherds actually keep their fragile flocks out in the open fields on a cold late-December night near Bethlehem?
No responsible shepherd would subject his sheep to the elements at that time of year when cold rains, and occasional snow, are common in that region.
"The climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this country [England]; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October" (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 1959, p. 91).
Luke also tells us that Jesus was born at the time of a census ordered by the Roman emperor (Luke 2:1-3). The Romans were brilliant administrators; they certainly would not have ordered people to journey to be registered at a time of year when roads would have been wet and muddy and traveling conditions miserable. Such a move would have been self-defeating on its face.
The belief that Jesus was born on or around Dec. 25 simply has no basis in fact, even if 2 billion people have accepted it without question. As the famous playwright George Bernard Shaw said, "If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."
Does Christmas really honor Christ?
If the Christmas holiday is an important celebration to honor the birth of Jesus Christ, why is it nowhere mentioned in the Bible? Why didn't Christ instruct His closest followers, His 12 chosen apostles, to keep Christmas? Why didn't they institute or teach it to the early Church?
Before you answer, consider that Jesus gave great authority to His 12 apostles, assuring them that they will hold positions of great importance and responsibility in His Kingdom (Matthew 18:18; 19:28; Luke 22:29-30). But since Jesus never taught His apostles to keep Christmas, nor did they ever teach it to the Church though they had years of opportunity to do so, shouldn't that make us question whether Christmas is something Jesus really wants or appreciates?
So how did Christmas become such a widespread practice if the Bible doesn't sanction it, if Christ didn't observe it and if He never taught His disciples and the early Church to celebrate it?
True origins of Christmas
Most people never stop to ask themselves what the major symbols of Christmas—Santa Claus, reindeer, decorated trees, holly, mistletoe and the like—have to do with the birth of the Savior of mankind. In
the southern hemisphere summer climate of December, few people question why they observe a Christmas with northern hemisphere winter scenery!
The fact is, and you can verify this in any number of books and encyclopedias, that all these trappings came from ancient pagan festivals.
Even the date, Dec. 25, came from a festival celebrating the birthday of the ancient sun god Mithras. (If you'd like to learn more about the origins of the many customs and symbols associated with Christmas, request our free booklet Holidays or Holy Days: Does It Matter Which Days We Keep?)
Jesus never told His followers to celebrate Christmas, but He did warn us not to adhere to false, man-made religious doctrines: "And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). The truth is, Christmas and other non-biblical religious holidays constitute vain or empty worship of Christ.
The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that the Christmas season came from an ancient midwinter festival that occurred at the time of the winter solstice. Interestingly, the previously noted Origen, despite the early period in which he lived (ca. 182-251), never even mentioned it (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 3, 1967, and "Christmas and Its Cycle," The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. 3, "Christmas").
Tertullian, another Catholic theologian who lived at about the same time (ca. 155-230), referred to compromising Christians then beginning to join in the pagan midwinter festival celebrated in the Roman Empire, which eventually evolved into what is now Christmas:
"The Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians" (Tertullian in De Idolatria, quoted by Hislop, p. 93).
In time Catholic religious leaders added solemnity to this pre-Christian holiday by adding to it the Mass of Christ, from which it eventually came to be known by its common name of "Christmas."
A matter of whether, not what
The purpose of The Good News magazine is to share with you the living truth of Jesus Christ. A true Christian cannot decide what he will obey, only whether he will obey God's truth.
We strive to publish God's pristine truth; people who read that truth have to decide what to do about it and whether they will honor it. Our commission from Jesus Christ is to teach the truth of God and to welcome as disciples and fellow workers those few who hear and obey the truth. We hope the truth about Christmas starts you on the road to true happiness and God's purpose for you.
History shows that Christmas does not represent Christ. It misrepresents sound biblical teaching and is in opposition to God's truth. God wants us to worship Him in truth (John 4:23-24), not fable.
In Deuteronomy 12:28-32, God told His people to worship only in the ways He commanded, telling them "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." He explicitly ordered them not to copy or adopt the religious practices of the pagans, calling such practices "abomination[s] . . . which He hates."
Yet hundreds of millions of men, women and children unwittingly observe Christmas, not knowing or caring from where it came. They assume that 2 billion Christians can't be wrong or that it doesn't matter how we worship God so long as our intentions are good. But why should we think we honor God or please Him when we worship contrary to His commands?
Crucial questions only you can answer
The crucial question is, do we worry more about what others think or about what God requires? Also, can other human beings give us salvation? If honoring God's truth determines our salvation, then why honor men over God?
Jesus Christ said to those who appeared religious but denied the power of His true teaching, "But why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46; compare Matthew 7:21). Since Christ is opposed to Christmas, why would any thoughtful Christian observe it?
Walking in Jesus' footsteps in a world that doesn't is never easy. But it is much better and eminently more rewarding than following the empty ways of the world.
God tells us in 1 John 2:15-17: "Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever." GN
A walk in the woods is not about lumber and a Christmas celebration is not about orthodoxy.
Live a little.
Not exclusively of course. I also used Gill's commentary, Strongs Concordance and Thayers Concordance, but sure..why not? The greek can be read either way. It's translator bias. I can bring up some other sources that confirm that Acts 15:5 can be read that way.
MAN #1:
I think it was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers.'
JESUS:
...right prevail.
MRS. GREGORY:
Ahh, what's so special about the cheesemakers?
GREGORY:
Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.
The Message translation adds things that are not in the Greek original. The KJV translation you posted repeats the Greek word by word. It is not a case of one bias versus another, it is an absence of bias versus considerable bias. This is what The Message introduces, that is not in the original:
Do your own comparisons: Unbound Bible
We do not celebrate a "religious" Christmas in our home, although we decorate, exchange gifts, bake cookies, etc. We celebrate belonging to Christ and the fact that he was born to die for us everyday of the year. I've never really been a big fan of setting apart one day a year to celebrate something about my Lord and savior.
Are you a part of the World Wide church of God?
Your analogy on marriage is right on. Marriage is a dim notion of the Trinity. But to add to it, I would like to say that the love between the two is so great that it literally creates a third person, a baby. Thus, even in this sense, the marriage is fruitful, just as the Trinity is eternally fruitful.
Within the Blessed Trinity, the Father ONLY begats the Son and from Him and THROUGH the Son, the Spirit proceeds. When they act, when they will, they will as one, and when the Scripture says that the Spirit will come to man, it also implies that Jesus and the Father are also there. Thus, the idea that the Spirit is working on earth while the Father and Son are in heaven gives the impression of three Gods. That was where my warning was directed to.
Regards
Oh, thanks a lot Jo! You want me to explain "omousion" and "upostasia" to this crowd?! See the trouble you guys made when you tinkered with the Creed! :)
Here is the classical Orthodox explanation of the Trinity as set forth in the Epistle of +Photios the Great to the Eastern Patriarchs in response to Rome's insertion of the filioque in the Creed:
"They attempted by their false opinions and distorted words to ruin the holy and sacred Nicene Symbol of Faith — which by both synodal and universal decisions possesses invincible power — by adding to it that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Symbol declares, but from the Son also. Until now, no one has ever heard even a heretic pronounce such a teaching. What Christian can accept the introduction of two sources into the Holy Trinity; that is, that the Father is one source of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Son is another source of the Holy Spirit, thereby transforming the monarchy of the Holy Trinity into a dual divinity?
And why should the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son as well as from the Father? For if His procession from the Father is perfect and complete — and it is perfect because He is perfect God from perfect God — then why is there also a procession from the Son? The Son, moreover, cannot serve as an intermediary between the Father and the Spirit because the Spirit is not a property of the Son. If two principles, two sources, exist in the divinity, then the unity of the divinity would be destroyed. If the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, His procession from the Father alone would of necessity be either perfect or imperfect. If it is imperfect, then procession for two hypostases would be much more contrived and less perfect than procession from one hypostasis alone. If it is not imperfect, then why would it be necessary for the Spirit to also proceed from the Son?
If the Son participates in the quality or property of the Father's own hypostasis, then the Son and the Spirit lose their own personal distinctions. Here one falls into semi-Sabellianism. The proposition that in the divinity there exist two principles, one which is independent and the other which receives its origin from the first, destroys the very root of the Christian conception of God. It would be much more consistent to expound these two principles into three, for this would be more in keeping with the human understanding of the Holy Trinity.
But since the Father is the principle and source, not because of the nature of the divinity, but because of the property of the hypostasis (and the hypostasis of the Father does not include the hypostasis of the Son), the Son cannot be a principle or source. The Filioque actually divides the hypostasis of the Father into two parts, or else the hypostasis of the Son becomes a part of the hypostasis of the Father. By the Filioque teaching, the Holy Spirit is two degrees or steps removed from the Father, and thus has a much lower rank than the Son. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, then of the three Divine Hypostases, the Holy Spirit alone has more than one origin or principle.
By the teaching of the procession from the Son also, the Father and the Son are made closer to each other than the Father and the Spirit, since the Son possesses not only the Father's nature but also the property of His Person. The procession of the Spirit from the Son is either the same as that from the Father, or else it is different, in which case there exists an opposition in the Holy Trinity. A dual procession cannot be reconciled with the principle that what is not common to the three hypostases belongs exclusively to only one of the three hypostases. If the Spirit proceeds also from the Son, why then would something not proceed from the Spirit, so that the balance between the Divine Hypostases would therefore be maintained?
By the teaching that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, the Father appears partial towards the Son. The Father is either a greater source of the Spirit than the Son, or a lesser source. If greater, the dignity of the Son is offended; if lesser, the dignity of the Father is offended. The Latins make the Son greater than the Spirit, for they consider Him a principle, irreverently placing Him closer to the Father. By introducing a dual principle into the Holy Trinity as they do, the Latins offend the Son, for by making Him a source of that which already has a source, they thus render Him unnecessary as a source. They also divide the Holy Spirit into two parts: one part from the Father and one part from the Son. In the Holy Trinity, which is united in an indivisible unity, all three hypostases are inviolable. But if the Son contributes to the procession of the Spirit, Sonship is then injured, and the hypostatic property damaged.
If, by the begetting of the Son, the power was thereby given to the Son that the Holy Spirit would proceed from Him, then how would His Sonship itself not be destroyed when He, Who Himself has a source, became a source of Another Who is equal to Him and is of the same nature as He? According to the Filioque teaching, it is impossible to see why the Holy Spirit could not be called a granson! If the Father is the source of the Son, who is the second source of the Spirit, then the Father is both immediate and the mediated source of the Holy Spirit! A dual source in the divinity inescapably concludes in a dual result; therefore, the hypostasis of the Spirit must be dual. Therefore, the teaching of the Filioque introduces into the divinity two principles, a dyarchy, which destroys the unity of the divinity, the monarchy of the Father."
D, your understanding of the nature of the Trinity is fully and completely heretical and if not pure modalism, it is a variant of it. In reading a bit to frame this response, I was astonished at the level to which this old heresy and its variants have infected groups professing to be Christian. In reading some of the sites and the proof texting used to support this heresy, I was amazed at the arrogance, and total lack of understanding of what has been the Faith of the Church for 2100 years displayed by these groups. As Jo points out, this heresy was down the tubes before the Council of Nicea, that's before 325 AD! The council was called because not only Arius, but also other bishops were misdescribing the nature of Christ and the Trinity. "Omousion" is a form of the Greek word "ousios" which pretty much means "essence". The Three Persons of the Trinity ("upostasia") share one essence, not two or three or 12, nor are there more than Three Persons. The innovation of the filioque was one of the precipitating events of the Great Schism. Rome inserted it for reasons having to do with combating Arianism. Personally I think Rome's intentions were good and arguing today that it means "from the Father through the Son" does in fact have patristic support. Unfortunately, as Jo points out, the word itself without the foregoing gloss, leads to precisely what +Photios complained of and in another manifestation, what you apparently believe.
Do you have a reference to the entire Epistle of Photios? I'd like to put it on my Filioque thread.
***I currently attend services with United Church of God.which is the originator of this article.***
***Aaron Dean was born on September 20, 1952, which he later learned was the feast of Trumpets. His mother was listening to Mr. Herbert W Armstrong... ***
Bingo.
***I totally agree with this statement about the holy spirit in the Nicene Creed. I believe the Holy spirit proceeds from the father and son and is their presence in our world.**
Filioque anyone?
Here's the link; the Epistle covers other matters which +Photios believes the Romans were in error on, but the big issue, as we all know, is the filioque:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~sshoemak/324/texts/photius_encyclical.htm
Alex, here's funny note. Tomorrow is the feast of +Nicholas, who as many know, was at the Council of Nicea and popped the heresiarch Arius in the face for his blasphemies! :)
Nice! Check out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1534587/posts
The Nicene Creed says nothing of the sort. You are making things up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.