Posted on 12/16/2007 10:01:33 PM PST by DouglasKC
For all the good that has been done on Christmas, I can’t see how anyone could object to it. For example, men of wealth would sometimes pay the debts of those in debtor’s prisons at Christmas time. Charitable giving always goes up during this time of year. Only a Scrooge would object to that.
"In America, the saying is that the minister follows the people, the people don't follow the minister," Restad said. "This was more of a sociological change than a religious one. The home and the marketplace had more sway than the church."
The focus of the story is the fact that religion has followed culture on the matter of Christmas. Charity is certainly admirable, but charity was a virtue taught and practiced long before churches started observing Christmas.
Humbug.
Yeah, but do you agree or disagree with the premise of the article?
At one time, religious art and music were considered idolatrous. Holidays were considered Catholic inventions.
Today, Christmas is far from being a religious holiday. People who have never set foot in a church celebrate Christmas. Most people are caught up with the commercial side - spending money - and the desire to have a celebration in midwinter to break up the monotony of long winter nights. All that counts for them are the traditional Pagan aspects of the evergreen, the lights, the gifts and feasting.
Odd that he failed to mention that the huge European immigration, the majority of whom were Catholic or, like the Lutherans,or Anglicans , observers of the liturgical year? It is, after all, “Christ-Mass” Sixty years ago the evangelicals still hated the mass with an intensity most seem to have lost. Of course, commercialization has indeed pushed aside the religious aspect. In the church calender, Christimas is preceded by Advent, a penitential season where the priest wears purple, as in Lent. Christmas Even used to be a day of fast and abstainence. No longer.
I wonder if Mormons celebrate Christmas? ;-)
I wonder if he celebrates his own birthday? Or those of his children, spouse or parents?
I sure hope not.
Consistency demands that he doesn't.
To celebrate one's own birthday and not the Savior's would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
Does he commemorate the death of Jesus? Yes?......no? If not, why not? If yes, why the death and not the birth?
I'm not sure, but I doubt he "celebrates" it. Most members of the church acknowledge birthdays. It's clear that biblically people knew how old they were so they marked it in some fashion.
I sure hope not. Consistency demands that he doesn't. To celebrate one's own birthday and not the Savior's would be hypocrisy of the highest order.
I think the scriptural argument is that December 25th isn't his birthday, or at least it can't be proven from scripture. It's tradition.
Does he commemorate the death of Jesus? Yes?......no? If not, why not? If yes, why the death and not the birth?
Yes, because Christ told us to commemorate his death:
1Co 11:24 and having given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which has been broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:25 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.
This memorial to the atoning death of Christ is done once a year on Passover, the same day he was sacrificed and the same day he made these statements.
Exactly the point of the article. Churches have abandoned scripture in order to follow culture.
Exactly right and Christians are warned about mixing Christianity with pagan practices:
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel
Without the birth there is no death. The two are inextricably linked. Jesus came into the world to die.
This is the birth about which Isaiah and the Old Testament prophets joyfully wrote. The birth which the Jewish people eagerly awaited. The evangelists who wrote the Gospels likewise devoted considerable space to the event and its subsequent consequences, such as Herod's slaughter of the Innocents and the coming of the Magi who brought their gifts. It's crystal clear from both the Old and New Testaments that this was and still is an extremely important event.
To be oblivious to all of this and the rich symbolism which surrounds the event in Scripture (the Magi bringing gifts, the presence of the shepherds) and to ignore it on the basis that there is no explicit command to celebrate it or out of doubts about the actual day, would be as good an example as it is possible to find of losing the entire meaning of Scripture through a narrow, literalist understanding of the Bible.
I disagree with the premise of the article.
Jesus had to have born on one of the 365 days of the year. If we decide to call Dec 25 “Jesus Day” then who really cares. It’s not like anyone has a birth certificate.
I don’t let people judge me on the days I do or do not decide to keep.
I’d far rather celebrate Jesus’ birth on the wrong day than miss a critical doctrine like the doctrine that Jesus was the incarnate 2d person of the Holy Trinity.
The death of Christ was the sacrifice that served as atonement for the sins of mankind. Through his death we were reconciled to God:
Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
His death ushered in the new covenant:
Heb 9:15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Now of course his resurrection was significant, but it was significant because it demonstrated the power of God and gives hope that we may attain to a resurrection and be part of the kingdom:
1Pe 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
But again, there is no instruction from Christ to observe his resurrection. But as pointed out there is a proclamation to observe his death.
The decision to create a special day to observe his resurrection is based on tradition, not scripture.
I think the premise of the article was focused more on how Christian churches abandoned scripture over the years and embraced culture and tradition on the Christmas issue.
I don’t let people judge me on the days I do or do not decide to keep.
The Lord told us what days to keep. Christmas wasn't one of them.
I’d far rather celebrate Jesus’ birth on the wrong day than miss a critical doctrine like the doctrine that Jesus was the incarnate 2d person of the Holy Trinity.
The divinity of Jesus Christ was established in scripture before Christmas was observed. It's not hard to miss...:-)
But the constant barrage of commercialism is hard to ignore, and the little kids do look forward to Santa.
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.