It is my suspicion that most Christians at some time in their lives have fallen into one or more of those categories. Christmas, both for skeptics and for believers, is a big deal. It's either a big target or a sacred shrine. So I'd like to point out something that, from all appearances, is not patently obvious to all involved. Our Savior was not born on December 25th. I know, I know, revolutionary. But it's true. In all likelihood God's Son did not arrive in winter in Palestine. Some guess May. Most prefer September. But no one doing the math (so to speak) concludes that December is the likely month, and no one can demonstrate that His birthdate was actually the 25th of that unlikely month.
One canned response to this fact from the Christian side of the pool is another protest. "See? We knew that! Christmas is based primarily on a pagan holiday with pagan origins and pagan traditions. We're better than that!" I've actually had some point to Scripture. "You know the Bible says not to have Christmas trees in your house, right?" And they'll haul you over to Jeremiah, where God says:
"Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move. Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good" (Jer 10:2-5).Never mind the fact that Christmas hadn't occurred at the time this was written. Forget about the fact that the first Christmas tree didn't occur until sometime in the 15th century. Never mind that the text is about making idols, not decorating a Christmas tree. And by all means ignore the fact that the concept of the Christmas tree has its origins in an evangelical effort in early Germany, not pagan worship.
Look, Jesus wasn't actually born on December 25, 0000. Didn't happen. So why are we fighting so much about it? Why do some feel the need to attack a non-day? Why do others feel the need to defend said day? What makes such a day "sacred"? I can understand that the celebration -- the recognition of the Incarnation of our Savior -- would be viewed with high regard, but why the day or its traditions? Did you know that the early church in America banned Christmas celebrations? That's right, the early Puritans in New England passed laws to prevent the false celebration of the birth of their Savior (whom they worshiped, not hated). After laws were removed, the celebrations were still discouraged. There was, you see, no Scriptural basis for such a celebration. Still isn't. But we have Christians ready to go to war (at least in court) over it.
What do we know? We know that Christ came. No question. We know that He was born. No doubt. We know that He was God's gift. He was fathered by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin in Bethlehem. He was announced to the common folk (shepherds in this case) as "the Savior, Christ the Lord." His coming elicited great praise: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Those who saw Him worshiped, whether lowly shepherd or great king-makers. And we know that Jesus arrived in a spiritual winter. Israel, God's chosen people, had heard nothing from God in 400 years. The Romans ruled. Hope was gaunt. God's people were scattered. It looked grim. And then, marked by a star, heralded by angels, produced and protected by God, a Savior appeared on the scene, lighting up the world with the Gospel.
Look, the day doesn't really matter. It isn't even the actual day. It isn't real. And we have indeed mixed pagan practice with spiritual sense to produce modern Christmas traditions. We've worked our way so far into "modern Christmas traditions" that I'd guess that it's no small number of genuine believers who no longer even know what "Christmas" (the word) actually means, let alone what it (the concept) means. But I don't think it's all bad that we celebrate the coming of God's love gift in the dead of winter, that we recognize the arrival of our Savior when things are coldest. I don't think it's completely wrong that we share the glory of the light of Christ by putting lights in and on our houses or recognize the ultimate gift of God by sharing gifts with each other. Oh, sure, I see there can be difficulties but, if we keep our focus, I can see value, too. No, it's not His actual birthday. No, it's not all wrong. We can still celebrate with the shepherds and the kings, the lowly and the great, to thank God for His inexpressible gift. I think I'll let the skeptics and their opponents fight this one out among themselves.
10 comments:
Christmas is for Christians only and we still enjoy the reason for the season. Unfortunately for many, God has removed the joy and spirit of Christmas from them. I am 59 years old, studied prophecy with two buddy’s for over 20 years, I have a degree in Bible, I heard more that once I don’t have to be that deep, so many can’t understand the King James Version, and now like the 12 days of Christmas I see much falling away.
Now I see doctrine of demons in the local Church. Now I see the Abomination of Desolation standing in the most Holy Place, the pulpit. Now I see fallen angels transforming into ministers of righteousness, and Satan transforming in to an angel of light. All these transformer movies and cartoons are not a coincidence.
Study the word of God as it says to be approved of God. Be comforted in these things as the Bible says. Be ever watchful for Christ return for to us He won’t come as a thief in the night and read Matthew 24 and the parable of the 10 virgins to see what the end times will be like.
Stan, I agree that Christmas isn't biblical, but it can be a benign and even a beneficial tradition that points people to Christ. In Mark 7, Christ seems to oppose human traditions only when they interfere with following God's commands; traditions aren't bad, per se.
Even if it's a poor representative of the Christian faith, it's a prominent one, and that's the reason it's under attack. It's a kind of proxy war against the Christian message, and while we should make clear that the Bible doesn't mention an annual celebration of Christ's birth -- much less the traditions surrounding it; we're not supposed to be hidebound to days and observances -- we should also stand against the radical statists who seek to drive Christianity from the public arena altogether.
Bubba, I agree that it can be beneficial. (That's why I said, "I see there can be difficulties but, if we keep our focus, I can see value, too.")
I keep finding myself confused by Tobias. You continually write incorrect or incomplete sentences, which leads me to believe that either English isn't your first language, or you're not as educated as you claims or you don't care about communication enough to be clear.
What are you trying to say? What does prophecy have to do with December 25th? What does the "God only approved" KJV have to do with Christmas? What does the 12 days of Christmas have to with Christ? What does Christ's return have to do with His birth? I just have no idea where you're going with you comment.
As for "All these transformer movies and cartoons are not a coincidence." That is just plain ridiculous to compare them to Satanism or sin or what ever. They started as a kids show to promote a toy line, not as a commentary on the changes in religion. They came back from nostalgia from those kids that watched the cartoons and are now adults. Still no association with Satan, or demons, or angels.
I find that most people are in error when it comes to the Bible. When I say something they never heard it.They are divided by denomination and they won't hear anything else from the Bible.
I have been studying the King James Version all my life. The grammar is totally different from today. It is a book of thoughts that you have to string together to gain understanding. The thoughts are not divided by chapter and verse. That was added later. We don't study the original languages. Most people don't understand the King James and prefer a 7th grade book like the NIV. Of course you can't gain the same understanding or get a job with a 7th grade education unless you are a pastor.
Yeah, my writings are confusing sometimes because I write my thoughts as they come to me in the King James style. My girl friend told me that in school they were to write like a novel and, stay on the subject, almost linear. Me, I like to pile on as much information as possible. You should be able to search the Scriptures by now and see if is so. You can ask follow up questions also. You should check out my blog and see if my writings are more coherent. They were written about 10 years ago. I did a brain dump and wrote for 3 years straight.Of couse no one wanted to hear. Now I have a blog and the U.S. is second to Russia. It is amazing that over 4,000 read my blog and can copy it to a word processor. I don't know whose using my writings and how far they are distributed. One other thing. Like when I wrote before, if I don't write it down I lose it.
I love the Bible and love talking about it but I have problems. This year I had a heart attack and a stroke. It affected my thinking and affecting my speaking. But with the help of the Lord I still manage. I ask you to be patient with me. These discussion are like therapy. I dedicated my life to study and public ministry. Thank
you. God is still using me to do great things as he is using you. I am fortunate to have found you...
Sorry to hear of your difficulties. Hope you will continue to recover. And I know what you mean by "if I don't write it down I lose it." Me, too. In some ways this whole blog thing is for my benefit.
While that explains why you write the way you do, its doesn't make it any more helpful in a discussion. If you just want to plop your thoughts down, a blog is a perfect place for it, and good on you for having one. But when trying to debate or discuss, the same "plop" format just doesn't work.
While I don't personally like the King James (I wasn't raised on it and it isn't a direct translation of the original text), I don't think it is in brain plop format either. Since it is based on the original texts, it would follow that flow of reasoning. I do have to say though, insulting everyone who doesn't prefer the King James as being uneducated is ridiculous and mean. It won't help to engender a feeling of communication or community.
As for the "reading level of a 7th grade level", I'm pretty sure the original text isn't in college format either. It was written so that everyone could understand, and by fishermen mostly (at least the New Testament). Just because it is written so that less educated people can understand it doesn't mean it doesn't hold profound truth, or have confusing layers underneath. And if a 7th grade writing level is "bad" you may want to try writing at a higher reading level yourself. If it isn't "bad", please stop insulting those of us that prefer more literal translations, rather than depending on what someone that didn't speak my language FELT about a passage.
"When I say something they never heard it.They are divided by denomination and they won't hear anything else from the Bible."
I really hate when people say this. As if some people are exempt from "not hear(ing) anything else" when it is their own view. I find it irrational and offensive. Everyone has their own view, which is informed by those that teach them. There are debatable points in Scripture, and it is good and healthy to do so, but accusing someone of not "hearing" simply because they refuse is most likely unfounded. Disagreeing isn't not hearing. From another discussion, you believe that Adam had many wives, I don't agree. But just because I don't agree doesn't mean I didn't hear your argument. Yes, there are people out there who refuse to hear out the other side. But aside from 1 or 2 people that follow Stan's blog, most of them hear an argument, weigh it, and disagree or agree. So to come to this place and accuse most of us to be in error when it comes to the Bible is unfounded and detrimental to an open, friendly discussion. For the most part, everyone here is open to new ideas, but we weigh those new ideas against what we know from Scripture already. Accusing them of not hearing anything because of denomination is merely an emotional attack against a rational argument.
David – 4 -1
“While that explains why you write the way you do, its doesn't make it any more helpful in a discussion. If you just want to plop your thoughts down, a blog is a perfect place for it, and good on you for having one. But when trying to debate or discuss, the same "plop" format just doesn't work.”
I beg to differ. How many discussion have there been about the Bible. There is plenty of fuel for discussion. I include a lot of information when I discuss with other people. It is your choice what to discuss. I would not say the Bible is plopped down and you should not follow that format because you are differently secular education in the U.S. Did you know that the U.S. is ranked 27th in education?
As I said or will say, the Bible can and many times will have several thoughts in one chapter and over chapters. The epistles to the Church addressed many issues. I am addressing many issues. To take them one at a time would not be productive. Look and see how many discussions we have had just on this one thread. The common denominator is marriage.
Whose rules are you using to determine the proper format for discussions? Had I not done it that way many things I could not address. The responses force me to clarify my position in writing which I needed to do. Believe it or not I am saving this for further Bible studies for you and others are a superb aid to me. To defend your position from the Bible is called Apologetics. I prefer the King James. I already gave some reasons. And that offends you?
I am glad you haven’t slammed the door in my face because I am a Jehovah Witness. For some reason Christians don’t want to be a witness for Jehovah, but they depend on Jehovah Jira as their provider. Don’t be confused I am not a member of that organization. I don’t slam the door in their faces because I like to study.
Oh, Oh. I went off on a tangent again that I have been dying to discuss. If I was not writing to you I would have never thought to discuss it with you. Believe or not I wrote thousand of pages over a 3 year period, just thoughts or shorts assembled into 13 books. Some is on my blog to share. The U.S. is second to Russia of my viewers. I have never made any money off of “Gods” word. He won’t let me!
“While I don't personally like the King James (I wasn't raised on it and it isn't a direct translation of the original text), I don't think it is in brain plop format either. Since it is based on the original texts, it would follow that flow of reasoning.”
How can you make these comments about a Bible you have not read. The King James Version has been the most popular Bible of all time. Unfortunately like my buddy said, “Least read.” Now so many people have not studied the KJV, don’t think you need a formal education on any version, they say they don’t understand the KJV. And they tell me I am wrong. You could buy a comparative Bible at a Christian book store. You know what preachers did with that book? They did not compare Scripture versions with the verses side by side. Instead they said, “This one says it like this, this one says it like this…”
“I do have to say though, insulting everyone who doesn't prefer the King James as being uneducated is ridiculous and mean. It won't help to engender a feeling of communication or community.”
David – 4 - 2
I happen to have a college level education using the King James. How can you know what I am talking about (those who have not a
Bible education). Why do you feel insulted? You don’t have to like me. All I ask is to check out what I say and see if is true. Do you have any idea why Jesus and the disciples faced the hostilities they did. They were not trying to be part of any community or Synagogue and people hated them for that. Jesus only saved about 500 people that he appeared to after being resurrected.
Like pastors in a Church they wonder about people who are offended. Where did you come from? Who are you? Do you pay tithes and offerings? How long have you sat under my teaching. I can not sum it up in a paragraph. This has taken me years of study and a formal Bible education at great expense.
I find it interesting that in order (in most cases) to be a professional you need an education except a Bible education. Many frown upon those who have a Bible education saying, “I don’t know what I am talking about. My opinion is as good as your opinion.” It is not about anyone’s opinion. It is about what the author is saying.
“As for the "reading level of a 7th grade level", I'm pretty sure the original text isn't in college format either. It was written so that everyone could understand”
What original text. So far I can only find the King James original text. Also they provided the Strong’s and the Young’s concordance as a help. The educational level has declined so much you can only study many subjects in college. I have two free Bible programs loaded with everything I need supporting the King James. There is virtually no helps to study the NIV. It has been around only about 50 years verses the King James at 400 years.
A NIV dictionary does not help like any dictionary (which definition do you use as the language changes?) I fear as the language changes the NIV will take on a whole new meaning. It might now if you use Webster’s Babylonian dictionary. America is Babylon according to Revelation 18.
Do you know how to use them? That is what they say. How many had an education? But you need an education in order to read. You need comprehension skills in order to understand. Teachers say the problem with education is their students have no comprehension skills and it is something that can’t be taught. It has to be readily available in print affordable. You have to desire to study the word of God. You need teachers to teach the word of God. (Teacher - Eph 4:11) Not someone who is apt to teach (Bishop - Timothy and Titus).
The Roman Catholic Church maintained control over the Bible. They spoke in Latin. Who remembered the common Greek it was written in. It was not until Luther and Calvin did the Pope release the Bible to the rest of the world with this warning. “Some among you will pervert the Scriptures for filthy lucre for they have no integrity.” Paul cried for 3 years warning people that there are false teachers, teachers of error.
Did you know, (this was then, this is now) the Geneva Bible came before the King James Version and it took 100 years before it was accepted. We do not use the 1611 version. It went through revisions because the language changed but still remained authorized by a King James. Not like other Bibles.
"Whose rules are you using to determine the proper format for discussions?"
Just for information sake, the "rules" are determined by "what makes sense" and "am I communicating what was intended?" To tell you that the sky is black at night, that there is a street outside my house that gets pretty busy during the day, and sunset is earlier today than last week may all be true, "plopped down" statements, but you will not be able to follow them or figure out what I'm saying or what I'm trying to get across.
"I prefer the King James. I already gave some reasons. And that offends you?"
Both David and I have said that King James is fine. That doesn't equate to "offense". The offense occurs when someone claims that the only reliable translation is the King James. (And King James is not "the original text".) When the further position is that the only possible way to understand the King James is to have a formal education, then it just gets foolish.
And if you're Jehovah Witness, you're doing it wrong. They have their own translation and it is not the King James (because it violates JW beliefs).
Post a Comment