Is Christmas Pagan? (Part 1)
December 14th, 2009 by Mark C.
This is a condensed excerpt from a new article on my web site. Every year when the Holidays roll around we get the usual circulated messages about Christmas. One sector of Christendom cries, “Let’s put Christ back in Christmas” and “Jesus is the reason for the season!” Meanwhile another sector says we can’t put Christ back in Christmas because he was never there to begin with. They claim that Christmas is a Pagan feast and any Christian who observes it is committing idolatry. Obviously both sides can’t be right. Is it Pagan? Is it Christian? Is it both? Is it neither? This article is an attempt to sort it out.
I am basing much of this writing on a series of articles by Dr. Richard P. Bucher, which can be seen on the web site of Our Redeemer Lutheran Church. He writes about Christmas and the origins of the Christmas tree, among other things. So many Christians admonished him about celebrating a “Pagan holiday” that he began to search the web and found a multitude of articles.
He carefully read them and found that while there are minor differences, they all use the same basic reasoning. Their argument is this: “Christmas is obviously pagan because:
- There is neither Biblical command or precedent for it;
- Christians did not observe it until the time of Constantine (after 313 AD); only then did the Church of Rome introduce it;
- The Date of Christmas and its many customs all come from pagan sources;
- When Christians observe Christmas in any way they are participating in paganism.”
He deals with each of these arguments in turn, with the view that it is neither commanded nor forbidden, and should be a matter of individual choice. While there is no Biblical command to observe the birth of Christ, we are given two detailed accounts of it, and Christians since then have read these passages and responded in worship and thanksgiving for the coming of the Messiah. But more importantly, does the silence of Scripture make celebrating Christ’s birth wrong?
…In matters that do not involve doctrine, in matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, Christians have freedom in the Church to do or say, add or create, or subtract and delete anything — unless, as I said, it clearly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith, or is found by the majority not to be edifying.
The fact is, while the birth of Christ was not among the festivals observed by Christians in the first two centuries, there is evidence that in some circles it was observed when the date was thought to be determined. And later when the church adopted December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth, there is no evidence that Constantine had anything to do with it.
It is in fact the origin of its date that is used as the strongest argument against Christmas. It is widely contended that Christmas was established as December 25th because of the Roman feast of Saturnalia. But this feast was held from December 14 – 24. Others correct this misunderstanding with the (more accurate) observation that December 25 was celebrated in Rome as the birth of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun. But does the choice of this date by the Christian Church automatically mean they were “compromising” with Paganism? Or were they providing an alternative for Christians to celebrate instead of the Pagan feast? (More on this later.)
And even if it had originated as a Pagan festival, so much has changed in the hundreds of years since then that Christians who choose to celebrate the birth of Christ at Christmas are no more embracing Paganism than those who worship on Sunday are worshiping the sun, for whom the day was named. Many Christians who celebrate the birth of Christ at this time of year do so based on several hundred years of Christian traditions, not on the much older Pagan ones. If they are celebrating the coming of the Messiah, God looks at that heart, not whether some other ungodly festivals were observed at the same time.
Even if Christmas had originated as a Pagan festival, it has long since been given new meaning by Christians in celebration of the birth of Christ. But did it actually stem from a Pagan festival?
The earliest reference to Christmas being observed on December 25 was a Chronography from 354 AD. This document listed the feasts of the Church calendar. Observance of Christ’s birth on December 25 was widespread in the Church by the time Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople (398-404), except in Armenia where it was observed on January 6. Dr. Bucher elaborates:
But how did it happen that the early Christians began observing Christmas on December 25? Why this date? There are two theories about why December 25 was chosen.
(1) The first theory holds that after careful research, Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, determined that Christ had been born on December 25; or at least he determined that December 25 was the best authenticated date in the Tradition. John Chrystostom states this in one of his writings (John Chrysostom, Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff.). Chrysostom claims that Julius, after he had been requested by Cyril of Jerusalem, had the official records of the Roman census examined and determined that December 25 was the correct date. As Weiser points out, however, there is no evidence to back this up; in fact, “it was expressly stated in Rome that the actual date of the Saviour’s birth was unknown and that different traditions prevailed in different parts of the world” (F. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs – New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958, 61.).
(2) The second theory states that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth to turn people away from a pagan feast that was observed at the same time. Since the time of the Roman emperor Elagabulus (218-222), the god Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun god), had been one of the chief deities worshiped by the Romans. When emperor Aurelian (270-275) came to power, he sought to restore the worship of the Sun god to prominence and make him the chief deity. In the last years of his reign, Sol was hailed as “The Lord of the Roman Empire.” Sol, along with Jupiter, appeared on the coins Aurelian had minted. In 274, the emperor built a magnificent temple to the Sun god, and established a new college of senators which he named “the priests of the Sun god.” Finally, December 25 was observed as “the birthday of the Sun god” (natalis solis invicti). Because the Sun god was identified with Mithra, a popular Persian god that also was viewed as the Sun god, pagan celebrations occurred throughout the empire on Dec. 25 (see Clement A. Miles, Christmas, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912, 23). The Church at Rome seems to have chosen this date to counteract this pagan feast of the sun god and turn people instead to the “Sun of Righteousness with healing in His wings” (Malachi 4:2; Luke 1:78). Or put another way, Julius chose December 25 so that the Son of God rather than the Sun god would be worshiped. Though there is no direct evidence that proves that the Church of Rome deliberately chose December 25 so that Christ’s birth would replace “the birthday of the sun,” we do have sermons from fathers of the church who soon after this used this line of reasoning. For example, Augustine (354-430) in his sermon 202 and Leo the Great (440-461 — PL 54 Sources chretiennes 22) gives this line of reasoning.
Therefore, the second theory seems to be the probable one. December 25 was chosen not because it had somehow been proven from extra-biblical sources that Christ was definitely born on December 25. Rather the date was chosen to counteract a very popular pagan holiday that already had been occurring on this date.
So we have indirect evidence that the date of Christmas was chosen as an alternative. In contrast, what evidence do we have that it was chosen as a compromise with Paganism? The commonly recycled explanations involve Nimrod and the supposed origins of all Pagan religion. In his article, Dr. Bucher quotes the following from the World Wide Church of God tract, The Plain Truth About Christmas.
But if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it from paganism, where did the pagans get it? Where, when, and what was its real origin? It is a chief custom of the corrupt system denounced all through Bible prophecies and teachings under the name of Babylon. And it started and originated in the original Babylon of ancient Nimrod! Yes, it stems from roots whose beginning was shortly this side of the Flood! Nimrod, grandson of Ham, son of Noah, was the real founder of the Babylonish system that has gripped the world ever since . . . . Nimrod built the tower of Babel, the original Babylon, ancient Nineveh, and many other cities. He organized this world’s first kingdom. The name Nimrod, in Hebrew, is derived from “Marad,” meaning “he rebelled.” . . . Nimrod was so evil, it is said he married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis. After Nimrod’s untimely death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree. Through her scheming and designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven,” and Nimrod, under various names, became the “divine son of heaven.” Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Nimrod also became the false Messiah, son of Baal the Sun-god. In this false Babylonish system, the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and Nimrod reborn) became chief objects of worship. This worship of “Mother and Child” spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and languages. In Egypt it was Isis and Osiris. In Asia, Cybele and Deoius. . . . Thus, during the fourth and fifth centuries, when the pagans of the Roman world were “accepting” the new popular “Christianity” by the hundreds of thousands, carrying their old pagan customs and beliefs along with them, merely cloaking them with Christian-sounding names . . . . The real origin of Christmas goes back to ancient Babylon. It is bound up in the organized apostasy which has gripped a deceived world these many centuries! In Egypt, it was always believed that the son of Isis (Egyptian name for “Queen of Heaven”) was born December 25th. Paganism celebrated this famous birthday over most of the known world for centuries before the birth of Christ. December 25th is not the birthday of Jesus the true Christ!
This line of thinking is seen repeated and recycled in many different sources. Where did it originate? Dr. Bucher explains.
So goes the argument, which is repeated by many different anti-Christmas authors. Where in the world did such an argument come from? This was the thesis of Alexander Hislop, who in the Nineteenth Century wrote a book entitled, The Two Babylons: Or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. It was Hislop’s thesis that the Roman Catholic Church was a direct descendent of the paganism of Nimrod and ancient Babylon. One of his arguments was that some of the chief holy days of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Christmas, prove this to be so. The stamp of Hislop’s thesis is found all over most of the anti-Christmas literature that I’ve seen. But is his argument sound?
Hardly. I have no doubt that Hislop consulted a vast amount of sources in writing his book. This is obvious in reading it. But some of its key arguments are flawed. He makes many philological leaps of faith to prove his points. For example, his entire argument rests on making the Babylonian “Ninus” the same person as the Biblical “Nimrod.” (Nimrod is mentioned in only three places in the Scriptures, Gen. 10:8-12, 1 Chr. 1:10, and Micah 5:6). Only then can he claim that the wife of Nimrod was Semiramis, and that both were worshiped as divine mother and son, etc. Hislop himself recognizes how important this is, in this very interesting sentence:
Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of the assumption itself (The Two Babylons, 25).
Got that? The point is that this turns out to be a big assumption. In other ancient literature, the father of Ninus was Bel, and it is said that he built the city of Nineveh. The Bible on the other hand says that Nimrod built Nineveh, and that Cush was his father. The way in which Hislop attempts to reconcile this contradiction is a truly remarkable example of literary gymnastics that is hardly convincing. He argues that Bel is the same as Hermes/Mercury, and the same as Janus/Chaos, which is the same as Cush. Right. (See for yourself by reading The Two Babylons, 25-29).
It is possible that Nimrod, the son of Cush, led people into pagan worship. But the argument that all paganism, and especially that all pagan festivals at the time of the winter solstice, can be traced back to Nimrod, just doesn’t hold. To say it is a scholarly stretch is an understatement. Yet most of the “Christmas is pagan” literature bases its arguments on Hislop’s thesis.
Isn’t it more likely, that many primitive cultures and religions would choose to celebrate the birth of their gods at a time when the sun began to grow stronger, and thus be reborn? Isn’t it much more likely that this is the reason that so many pagan religions have festivals at the time of the winter solstice? I’ll let you decide which thesis is stronger.
So there is no direct evidence for or against the claim that Christmas grew from Pagan roots. But if the source of the claim is flawed (and then constantly repeated) while there is at least indirect evidence to the contrary, which view is the more likely?
To Be Continued…
I have no struggle with this issue, although I know others do. I have two great uncles who were part of a church denomination that chose to not celebrate Christmas. I was raised in a family that celebrated it as a celebration of Christ’s coming – his birth and to look forward to his second coming.
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew people are warned to not participate in pagan festivals, for fear that they would begin to worship their false gods and idols. By participating in Christmas, we are worshiping the one and only living God (YHWH) who gave us the gift of salvation through Christ Jesus, His Son. So, I don’t think the idol or false god worship is an issue in this case.
I also find I Corinthians 8 – 9 helpful in my decision as to whether to celebrate the Christmas season or not with my own children. It speaks of whether the Body of Christ should be eating food sacrificed to idols…and the answer is: we have freedom in Christ. We know there is only one God, the Father (v. 6) from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we exist through him. To me, I have the freedom in Christ to celebrate Christmas! Others may use it for the wrong means or perhaps it originated by ungodly means, but when I eat of the goodness of Christmas, it’s all about God’s fulfillment of the prophesied Messiah and His coming Kingdom, where Jesus will rule and reign someday, here on the earth! Taste and see what the LORD has done!
How beautiful that is! I believe God wants us to celebrate Him and His Son Jesus! I believe disciples of Jesus need to have lots and lots of parties with God as our focus! I believe we need to have lots of feasts and fun times with friends and families, to glorify God who is in Heaven! When we skip Christmas, we skip a great excuse to tell the world that there is a Light in this dark world that leads us to eternal life in a kingdom that is to come. This Light is our salvation. Our way to enter into that life.
However, at the same time, I don’t think it should be a hotly debated topic. If people feel that this is ungodly and God would find it displeasing, then for their conscience’s sake, they should not participate. To be followers of Jesus, we must love one another, respect one another, and not judge one another, whose conscience may bother them. We are to love God, believe Jesus is the Christ, and win others to Jesus, so that they, too, may be a fellow partaker of the Gospel of the Kingdom.
Something the holiday season provides is an opportunity to speak the clarifying truths of the Scriptures to those who are enslaved in confusing traditions.
For example, where I live their are many who celebrate Christmas using the vocabulary of “the child God” being born. Furthermore, the tradition is closely mixed with adoration of Mary as “the Mother of God.” Of course such things are clearly idolatrous. Once a curious kid raised in such confusing religious thinking asked me how God could have sent angels to announce His own birth! When I explained the distinction between God and Jesus, this kid expressed great relief at understanding the truth about this.
More questions to ask (and maybe Mark will address them):
1.Are we involved in any pagan rituals during Christmas?
I don’t do any live animal sacrifices or burnt offerings. What were those pagans doing in their worship of Nimrod or the sun god?
2. Has the commercialization of Christmas made it more pagan than Christian? Do we anticipate the gifts more than the rememberance of the birth of the Messiah? Do we celebrate the new toys or the gift from the one true God?
The second question is what I struggle with in teaching our son. I want to make sure he understands the WHY of giving gifts. We try and spend a lot of time giving to those who don’t usually have Christmas. Yes, he is still probably too spoiled and Christmas doesn’t help but is it wrong to bless him when we can?
PS 139: 23-24
Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
I’m not sure exactly what they did, but as far as I know I don’t practice any pagan rituals.
As I see it, there are three different types of Christmas traditions. There are those that are Christian and emphasize the birth of Christ, there are those that are pagan in nature (referring to polytheistic, non Judeo-Christian religions), and there are those that are neither Christian nor pagan, but simply non-religious and secular. I would say that the commercialism has made Christmas more secular than either Christian or pagan.
This is something we are all challenged with. The emphasis on “getting stuff” certainly has the potential of overshadowing the birth of Messiah, and we need to be on guard against that. That’s why I feel it’s important to distinguish between the Christian traditions on one hand and both the pagan and the secular ones on the other, and therefore it’s important to know the truth about the origins of Christmas.
Thanks, Mark.
Merry Christmas!
Hi, Mark
Interesting article. Although I made similar conclusions regarding Hislop’s argumentative leaps I nevertheless find that Christmas’ connections with other more recent pagan feasts are indeed convincing.
One needn’t go that far back to see the true origins of Christmas. 25 December is a classical date for ancient sun-worshipers of the northern hemisphere. There’s no doubt about that. The particular god represented by the sun gets born/reborn on that day. This is enough to show why the Christian hero is celebrated to be born on that same day.
Mark, exchanging presents, Santa Claus, the date, the tree, elves, children’s good behaviour, all of these and more had some kind of pagan demonic origin. There’s no doubt about it, Mark, and we can go without Hislop and still prove it.
As with Halloween, St. Patrick’s Day, Easter and others, the Christian celebration of these came from compromise. Continually celebrating these means approving of the compromise. Exposing the pagan origin of other traditions while rationalising away these other sensitive sentimental ones amounts to having double standards. There’s no way in which we can drink of the cup of demons and the cup of Yahweh (1 Cor. 10:21). Contrary to what we expect, namely, that the pagan origins/contributions to the Christian Christmas gradually fade in the minds of modern Christians, we see greater and greater awareness of its unholy beginnings. That makes it a big deal. How can any Christian parent join in the pretence? How does any Christian keep a bold face when wishing the rest of the ignorant masses a “Merry Christmas?†What fabulous sop does the Christian parent conjure up when their children ask them some sensitive Christmas questions? None of the condoning arguments hold water in my opinion.
In another post I said it and I’ll say it again, had Old Satan not corrupted mankind and religion the way he did, none of this would have been produced. There would not have been any sacred tree, no red-and-white fatty straining down chimneys, no ho-ho-ho shouting Saint Nicolas aka Ruebezahl aka Thor (and the list goes on), whether with or without his demon-companion Krampus, no “good†nature-demons called elves, no 25 December, and definitely no winter-birth of the Jewish Messiah. Jesus, the Son of God, whose zeal for God’s House has eaten him up (John 2:17), would NEVER have approved this Christianized demon-festival now a commercialised birth-date gone wrong. Christian freedom doesn’t change any of it. Christian freedom does not mean being indifferent or reckless regarding the deep things of Satan (Jude 4, Rev. 2:24) This festival will NOT survive into the new world, nor should it. There’s no place for it there. As someone striving to live proleptically as part of the New Creation, I cannot celebrate it, nor can I trivialise the implication of its celebration.
Whether you like it or not, in no way can there be any harmony between Christ and Belial (2 Cor. 6:15). The origins of Christmas is shrouded in paganism. Every time you say, “Marry Christmas,†you actually say “Merry Krampus.†Whether you like it or not…
Jaco
The fact that the sun god’s birth was celebrated on Dec. 25 is not in question. What is in question is whether the date of Christmas was chosen to “adopt” and “Christianize” the pagan celebration or to provide an alternative. Even if we “go without Hislop,” there is more evidence for the latter.
Many different customs have become associated with Christmas since then, and some are certainly pagan in origin, but not all of them. I’m not a big fan of the “Santa and his elves” scenario myself. But the Christmas tree can definitely be shown to have Christian origins, not pagan. That will be handled in Part 2.
Giving gifts has been associated with many different cultures and customs, so you can’t really say it’s exclusively pagan or demonic. Still, the commercialism and over-emphasis on materialism has made the holiday season decidedly too secular. Even though the actual birth was probably in the fall, a greater focus on the birth of Christ at this time of year, instead of the pagan and/or secular aspects of the season, would be a welcome change.
To claim that “Every time you say, ‘Merry Christmas,’ you actually say ‘Merry Krampus.’ Whether you like it or not” is like claiming “every time you say ‘son of God’ you actually say ‘God the Son’ whether you like it or not.” Just because there are some people who hold to such beliefs doesn’t mean that all Christians use the words in the same way.
I don’t believe this is being indifferent or reckless. Nor do I consider it “rationalizing away” traditions because they are sentimental. I believe it is a matter of getting the facts straight, so it’s not a double standard. As I said, some of the traditions that have become associated with Christmas are pagan in origin and I don’t condone them. But the date of Christmas and the more Christian traditions cannot be proven to have demonic or pagan origins.
The birth of Christ has been celebrated on Dec. 25 for hundreds of years by Christians whose heart was to worship God for the gift of His Son. Just because pagans used to worship the sun on the same date in no way proves that they were “compromising.” The “greater awareness” of its “unholy beginnings” is IMO typical of the spread of misinformation that happens because people don’t check the facts when somebody makes a proclamation that sounds right.
The bottom line is that whether or not to celebrate Christmas or any other special day is a matter of personal choice, according to Paul. If you are convinced that Christmas is demonic then by all means you should not celebrate it. But before we tell others what is good or bad, we need to examine all the facts and not be moved by unsubstantiated claims.
No, the festival won’t survive into the new world, but neither will a lot of things. But until then, it isn’t going anywhere. So as long as the celebration exists, which would be more conducive to spreading the gospel – ignoring everything about it because you were told it’s pagan, or encouraging more people to focus on the birth of Christ as Christians have done for hundreds of years? Focusing on Christ rather than other things is always a better choice.
Jaco
you have spoken the truth to deaf ears.
Mark
God never changes what he Hates, Not even calling the molten calf Yahweh pleased God.
If God never commanded something to be celebrated in HIS NAME it is for sure a deception of satan to MARK his own children
Exodus Chapter 32
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us elohim, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
3 And all the people brake off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received it at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it a molten calf: and they said, These are thy elohim, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
5 And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To-morrow shall be a feast to Yahweh.
6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.
7 And Yahweh spake unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, that thou broughtest up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
8 they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed unto it, and said, These are thy elohim, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
9 And Yahweh said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
10 now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
11 And Moses besought Yahweh his Elohim, and said, Yahweh, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, that thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
Robert,
There is no argument that God hates idolatry. If I saw people bowing before their Christmas tree and saying, “This is my God,” I would certainly point out their error. But I don’t see that, do you? There is simply no solid evidence that early Christians were compromising with paganism when they designated Dec. 25 as the celebration of Christ’s nativity.
So does that mean we must not celebrate birthdays, wedding anniversaries, or other happy occasions? Should we refuse to call the days of the week by their recognized English names because they are named for Pagan deities?
If we take that logic to its ultimate conclusion, then we end up like those who forbade organs and other instruments in church, or the modern groups who refuse to use electricity or automobiles, because they aren’t mentioned in Scripture.
For that matter, the very idea that you should not do anything that isn’t commanded by God, is itself NOT commanded by God! So on what do you base that declaration? Where to you draw the line? There is no command either for or against the celebration of Jesus’ birth.
Mark
i allready knew your excuses, was no need to repeat them.
as for me and my house i will follow God’s ways and only allow for Gods name to be applied to biblical truths not traditions invented to MARK satans children
You didn’t answer my question, Robert. If you consider yourself to “only allow for God’s name to be applied to biblical truths not traditions…” then do you refuse to celebrate birthdays, wedding anniversaries, or other happy occasions? Do you refuse to call the days of the week by their recognized English names because they are named for Pagan deities?
Mark
i answered it perfectly
I HAVE NEVER PUT GODS NAME ON ANY OF THOSE
so whats your point?
Just wondering. Have a happy season.
Xavier,
I used to use that verse too, as I mention in Part 2. But the context is talking about carving idols and worshiping them, not about Christmas trees.
Mark C.
YHWH prohibits “the CUSTOMS of other nations/peoples” [v.3], since they invevitably lead to a form of “idol worship”. Which, I would argue, is what typifies the Western tradition of Christmas nowadays.
Besides, you have to admit that the “custom” of the decorated tree here closely resembles the said tradition of Christmas.
It is a heart issue. It is what is inside a man or woman’s heart that makes a person clean or unclean. My home has 2 Christmas trees, lights all over the kitchen, the stairwell, the front porch, wreaths on the windows…gorgeous! Presents under the trees. I’m going home to spend wonderful family time with relatives I haven’t seen in much too long. I’ve spent some time in the malls looking for a gift for someone, which might bring some joy to their day. I’ve baked cookies for cookie swaps and classroom Christmas parties.
On the outside, someone looking at me, might think it looks pagan or secular, or just plain unScriptural. However, my knowing my heart – that it is completely, utterly, passionately, obsessed over my Lord Messiah Jesus, and His and My God, YHWH, shows that there is no room for any false god or worship of any idol. My heart is completely, utterly devoted to my God and His purpose.
To some, it is wrong and sinful, because their heart may be misplaced. To others, it is worshipful to God, because we make it so. Everything we do is worshipful, for my life is a living sacrifice to my God. I make everything about my God. I can take what the world means for evil, and turn it into good and make it about God.
It is our jobs as parents to live this out so it is contagious to our children. They will catch the passion of their parents. There is joy & freedom in Christ!
Mark, you said,
So, Mark, will you do the research of ancient 4th century texts and historical accounts and rewrite what the rest of religious academics have found to be the case? You will find, Mark, that there is more evidence for the pagan influence of sun-worship on the Catholic Church under Emperor Constantine, than for the Gnostic influence on second-century Christianity. We all accept the latter with their direct and circumstantial evidence; why not do the same with the more convincing stuff?
I’m looking forward to your references from Scripture, the Christian Handbook, to show the Christmas tree with all its decorations, associated with the birth of Christ, have, as you state, Christian origins. I’ve always found it very refreshing to see how sites like these aim to rid “Orthodox†Christianity of its human tradition. Yesterday’s tradition becomes tomorrow’s orthodoxy. Hopefully you’ll do the same with Christmas.
Well, look at what Wikipedia says under “Yule:â€
You go on:
No, sorry, you’re equivocating here. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that the Trinity is false, so, no Son of God/God the Son equating there. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that Christmas tradition, among many other traditions, have been borrowed from paganism, hence the Merry Christmas/Merry Krampus equation here. Sorry, but you’re not comparing apples to apples.
Oh, right, so motive makes everything right, right? Why do you write on refuting the pagan Trinity? Millions of people have sincere hearts worshiping the Triune god including his Son. What’s your point, brother???
IT HAS BEEN PROVEN that Constantine introduced Sun-worship, Mark. Your reasoning amounts to reductio ad absurdum. To follow your reasoning, just because contemporary Gnostics believed in the inherent wickedness of what is physical and the pre-existence of their hero, in no way proves the orthodox conviction of the Pre-existing Christ is of Gnostic origin. (according to your reasoning, I said.)
According to Paul??? Get your references ready, brother, Brother Paul was a zealous defender of religious purity. It’s not about conviction, Mark, it’s about evidence. Evidence that weigh much heavier than the evidence of Gnostic/Christian influence we’ve accepted to be true. The only unsubstantiated claims here is your claim of no influence. You have to do the research to refute Hislop, Neander, and others, that ALL the useless little add-ons of Christmas are pure and innocent little vanities.
Mark, the more you write about this the worse and more fallacious your generalisations become. Following your reasoning again, WHY OPPOSE THE TRINITY THEN??? Do you know how easily Hindus and Taoists take to Christianity due to the familiar ring of God incarnating as an avatar, who died for mankind??? Why don’t you just leave the spreading of the trinity heresy since you do it with Christmas for the very same reasons??? Wow, Mark, why not Christianise Divali in celebration of the Eternal Light??? Man this reasoning becomes nonsensical!
I never knew you had such a narrow concept of idolatry, Mark. By the way, it was not merely the idolatry that angered Yahweh, but the idolatry SANCTIFIED as a festival to Yahweh. This is exactly the compromise involving Christmas. We have to be holy, just as Yahweh is holy – physically and spiritually (2 Cor. 7:1). The kind of compromise you’re advocating would leave us spiritually fornicating and Christianising every other pagan festival, man.
No, Mark, there’s no adding religious meaning to any of these. No one celebrating these necessarily claim any Biblical significance to these. You’re rationalising yet again. With this reasoning anything should be condoned. Somewhere you’ll have to draw the line.
No one posting here argued the matter from Biblical silence. We argue it from Biblical prohibition to Christianise what is pagan, to ignore the lie, since, after all, Jesus was not born then, and to act against one’s conscience to live a life not only physically, but also morally and spiritually clean. Your arguments don’t add up, sorry.
Don’t mock, Mark. You won’t wish a Muslim happy Easter (make the connection yourself).
BTW, since you wrote the article arguing the side for not objecting against Christmas celebrations, who will write for the side of objecting against it??? If it’s a matter of personal choice, be fair and provide the argument for the other side, man. Since John-Paul and I seem to share the same sentiments regarding this issue, I wonder what his take is on our discussion.
Respectfully disagreeing as a brother,
Jaco
Angela,
This reminds me of Paul’s argument in Romans 14, regarding the weak and the strong [“clean and unclean foods”].
In other words, this does not mean that the person who is “fully persuaded” [as is Paul] that certain foods are “unclean” are correct. Since Paul [and Jesus] make it clear that “all foods are clean” [cp. Mar 7.19]
Contrasting this with Christmas, and taking Paul’s lead here, if we know this has nothing to do with our faith, yet not only celebrate it but teach our kids to do the same, do you think this is still right?
Angela,
This post is in stark contrast to the article you wrote on protecting your family where you lay down all kinds of restrictions which got a few people reacting against the legalism of it all.
I got a Buddhist/Hindu statue in one of the corners of my living room. I chiselled out the third eye on its forehead and engraved the Christian cross into it. In front of it is a little altar on which I burn frankincense. In front of the altar is a Buddhist rosary. I usually recite the Our Father prayer using it. I am also into feng shui, but I only use plants and rock from the Promised Land to find sacred balance in my home and garden. I love chanting mantras! Not in Sanskrit, but in Hebrew. The shaman rags I got from a Mongolian healer have YHWH written all along their seams. How much more powerful they will be having the Divine Name on them! I love Christian freedom…everything goes. I can perform whatever demonology I want to, invoking only faithful messengers of Yahweh. He knows my motives, doesn’t he? My neighbors might think I’m an inter-religious New Age guru. Don’t we all stand for the New Age of the cosmic Christ anyway? Who cares what people think? Who cares about outward impressions? As you said, “To some, it is wrong and sinful, because their heart may be misplaced.†Motives correct EVERYTHING under Christian freedom…isn’t Christ’s blood just cheap?
Freeeeee as a Brahman bull! All in the name of Christ!
Jaco
Jaco,
I think you just may have written the post of the year…
kuddos!
Jaco, you wrote:This post is in stark contrast to the article you wrote on protecting your family where you lay down all kinds of restrictions which got a few people reacting against the legalism of it all.
In fact, this is actually very consistent with my intent on that article about placing a hedge of protection around your marriage. That phrase was used by Satan, but I have the freedom to use that phrase to represent ways that my husband and I can place boundaries that we both have decided upon for us. It was not to give other people restrictions or to convince them to legalistically follow rules. Please reread the entirety of the discussion. 🙂
I think it may go against the blogging rules of this website to bring another blog subject from the past into a current one, so I will leave it there.
However, I do agree with you. There is freedom in Christ.
I think I made my point.
Jaco
I have been trying to make this same point for 6 months but failed, i want to thank you for this clear observation of what scriptures says on this subject and for your ability to conveye it.
I also dont understand how come some here dont use the same reasoning they use for the falseness of the trinity to overcome other traditions that are false. i understand we must use the whole scriptures to get the context of who God is but ignoring whats clear because of something that could mean many different things doesnt make any sense to me and is the reason i have many problems with several here.
again thank you for providing such a clear view of the truth
Jaco writes…Since John-Paul and I seem to share the same sentiments regarding this issue, I wonder what his take is on our discussion
Response- Didn’t you mean Xavier-Robert and I share the same sentiments regarding this issue?
I’ve seen Christmas trees with lights and bulbs and presents under the tree in many a Christian’s home, and I’ve seen pictures of Jesus there too, but I never saw a Santa Claus cap on his picture.
Even when Christians celebrate Christmas they like to keep things separate don’t they?
Maybe they celebrate holidays because of family tradition more than out of respect or lack of respect for what were pagan holidays.
“Response- Didn’t you mean Xavier-Robert and I share the same sentiments regarding this issue?”
Michael
i am sure he meant what he wrote but he sure can add me as a follower of the truth
Xavier,
While there is much greed and materialism in what has become the typical secular Western tradition of Christmas, I would argue that it hasn’t always been that way, and it didn’t start out that way. And the custom described in Jer. 10 is talking about carving idols out of the trees they cut down. “…They cut a tree out of the forest, AND A SKILLED WORKER SHAPES IT WITH A CHISEL.” This is not talking about the custom of hanging things on a tree, which is a much later custom.
____
Jaco,
The research has already been done. That was the point of the whole article. First of all, there is very little written about it from the 4th century. Second, what little there is more closely resembles my point – that the birth of Christ was designated as Dec. 25 in OPPOSITION and as an ALTERNATIVE to the pagan festivals that were being observed at the time. Most academics attest to this. On the internet, those who insist it was a compromising adoption of paganism generally make unsubstantiated claims, most often quoting or referring to The Two Babylons, or at least repeating such ideas without giving any references.
Not from what I’ve seen; and not from the most reliable historical sources.
Because the gnostic influence on Christian doctrine can be easily refuted with Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that forbids the celebration of Christ’s birth or equates it with idolatry.
Obviously there are no references from Scripture, since the Christmas tree as we know it originated hundreds of years later. But the best historical evidence shows that it has its origins in Christian traditions rather than pagan.
The fact that you say this shows that you have not read the entire article on my website (of which this post was only an excerpt) nor have you read all of the articles by Richard Bucher that are linked from my article. I find it interesting that you argue this subject so passionately without even having considered all of the evidence.
So anything that is even similar to a pagan custom from hundreds of years ago is off limits? Are we then to eschew the eating of smoked pork loin, ginger biscuits, codfish, or porridge because they were once part of some pagan tradition?
I don’t endorse the Santa Claus traditions that have come to be associated with Christmas in more recent years.
My point was not whether the things referred to are true. My point was that to claim one phrase is “really” the other is as baseless and illogical as the claim that “Son of God” is the same as “God the Son.” Just because there are some traditions about Krampus that certain cultures have attached to Christmas, it is incorrect to say that anyone saying “Merry Christmas” is endorsing those traditions. Especially since the word ‘Christmas’ is not derived from ‘Krampus.’ Besides, many Scriptures can be used to prove the Trinity is false. In contrast, there is no Scripture that “proves” that Christmas is derived directly from paganism.
The Trinity can be specifically refuted from Scriptures. As I said, there is nothing about celebrating the birth of Christ in Scripture. For such matters that are neither commanded nor forbidden, yes, motive does “make everything right.”
It has NOT been proven; that’s the point.
How about Romans 14?
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
With all due respect, that is a completely false statement. There are many, many writings that clearly demonstrate the gnostic and Greek philosophical influence on Christian doctrine, all of which can be refuted from Scripture. But there is simply no such hard evidence to show that the 4th century Christians were compromising and Christianizing pagan rituals, rather than providing an alternative, in competition with the pagan feasts.
As I said, the research has already been done, if you read Dr. Bucher’s articles. And besides, I am not arguing that “ALL the useless little add-ons of Christmas are pure and innocent little vanities.” I have stated that some of the traditions that have come to be associated with Christmas are certainly of pagan origin and I don’t condone them. But not EVERYTHING about Christmas is of pagan origin.
Are you really comparing me to Richard Dawkins? That’s a bit much. I’m not trivializing anything. You brought up the fact that Christmas won’t survive in the new world. I merely pointed out that a lot of things won’t that aren’t necessarily evil. And in the mean time, it’s simply a fact that it isn’t going anywhere, so we might as well deal with it in a positive way that focuses on Christ.
No, not because it’s so GOOD, but simply because that’s the reality of it. People are not going to stop celebrating Christmas. There are also a lot of other traditions that aren’t likely to be stopped any time soon. I’m certainly not saying that we should “merely accept any unacceptable tradition simply because it’s not going anywhere?” My argument is that while there are many aspects of Christmas that are unacceptable, there are some that are not. It is a historical fact that for hundreds of years many Christians have celebrated the birth of Jesus at Christmas, and since the holiday isn’t going anywhere, why not try to get the focus back onto Christ instead of the greed and immorality?
I am not making generalizations. I am pointing out the lack of evidence and the historical inaccuracy of the generalizations that have been made about the supposed pagan origins of Christmas.
As I have said, the Trinity can be refuted from Scripture.
It’s not for the same reasons. You are so convinced that Christmas is a compromise with paganism that you aren’t even getting my point.
Because Divali is not Christ. The reasoning you think I am using is indeed nonsensical, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, that is not my reasoning. I don’t advocate Christianizing pagan festivals, but there is no evidence that they were doing so when they designated Dec. 25 as Christmas. It was an ALTERNATIVE not a COMPROMISE.
My reference was in response to the quote from Exodus 32 which specifically mentions bowing to a physical idol and saying “This is my god.” I understand that idolatry involves more than that, but I don’t believe that people who worship God and celebrate the birth of Christ are putting anything ahead of God by doing so.
As I have pointed out, there is no proof of that.
Once again, I am not advocating compromise. What part of “alternative” do you not understand?
No one celebrating Christmas claims there is any BIBLICAL significance to it either. There is no Biblical command either for or against it. It is a tradition, but one that had Christian meaning, and still does to many Christians.
I’m not rationalizing, I’m following your logic. If we are not to follow any tradition that is not specifically commanded by God in the Bible, then we should not observe those things that I mentioned. As for drawing the line, I use Scripture as my guide. I would not follow any tradition that contradicts the Bible, but celebrating the fact that God’s Only Son was born does not contradict it.
Actually, Robert did. He said:
“If God never commanded something to be celebrated in HIS NAME it is for sure a deception of satan to MARK his own children.”
I agree that we should not Christianize what is pagan. I disagree that that is what Christmas does, for those who genuinely worship God in celebration of the birth of His Son.
I wasn’t mocking. If I had said “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” it would have been mocking. I merely wished him a happy season, whatever the season might mean to him. (Even if it means nothing to him, he can still have a happy one.)
The other side is well represented across the internet. As for providing the other side’s argument in the interest of choice, I believe I did that in the article. I (or rather Dr. Bucher in his original article) quoted the opposing viewpoint at length, but then refuted it. I recommend searching his article and others to get the whole story, before you accuse hundreds of years of Christians of compromising with paganism.
That’s not what Paul is saying there. Mark 7:19 says that Jesus declared all foods clean as far as not being in and of themselves unclean. What Paul is talking about in Rom. 14 is that if someone believes that something is unclean, they shouldn’t eat it, but they should not judge or condemn someone else who doesn’t think it’s unclean. Likewise with observing certain days. It is a matter of personal choice, as long as they put God first in their observing or not observing.
But that’s just it. We don’t “know that this has nothing to do with our faith.” It is our faith that God sent His Only Begotten Son, who was born into this world to bring about “Peace on earth, good will toward men.” We have two accounts in the Bible of his birth, to be read and contemplated. Just because we don’t know the date doesn’t mean we can’t worship God for the gift of His Son. And the fact that the date was set in order to honor the Son of God INSTEAD OF the sun god, as well as hundreds of years of Christian tradition (in spite of other traditions that were later associated), is our way of saying we worship the true God and not the false pagan ones.
You are not comparing apples with apples. Nobody is suggesting we take a demon or an obvious pagan idol and call it Christian. The whole argument is whether or not Christmas or a Christmas tree is an “obvious” pagan idol. And before arguing about that, I highly recommend you read my and Dr. Bucher’s entire articles.
And you tell me not to mock?
Still, I hope I have gotten it across that I am NOT advocating the compromise of pagan rituals and Christianity. I was against celebrating Christmas for many years, because I bought into the commonly held notion that it was indeed such a compromise. But the evidence shows otherwise, and before we accuse people of idolatry we need to get the facts straight.
Jaco said
“No one posting here argued the matter from Biblical silence.”
Mark said
Actually, Robert did. He said:
“If God never commanded something to be celebrated in HIS NAME it is for sure a deception of satan to MARK his own children.â€
my statement wasnt a matter of biblical silence, the OT is packed with this warning.
GODS NAME ONLY BELONGS ON WHATS GODLY AND IS NOT TO BE GIVEN TO ANY FALSE GODS OR THEIR TRADITIONS OF WORSHIP.
the verse i quoted was to just show you your error in who GOD IS and WHAT HE EXPECTS FROM HIS CHILDREN
Mark C.
As I wrote to Angela, this chapter makes the distiction between those who are “weak and strong” in the faith. I do not think Paul is saying that those who abstain from eating certain foods are right, since he claims to be fully “persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” [v.14; cp. Mar 7.19]. He reiterates the point when he says that such people’s “conscience is weak” [1Cor 8.7-10], hence “defiled”:
The problem with your defense of Christmas is that this is a holiday with Christian [over]tones, and as Christians of the sound doctrine we should not seek to support in anyway events that are marked as such. Any other holidays, celebrations etc. [ie. brithdays, July 4th etc.] are clearly secular events with no Christian elements whatsoever.
Christmas as its foundation claims to have Chrtistian undertones but in truth, as we all well know, it is a hybrid of pagan and orthodox Christianity.
Why should we [as Christrian “worker…of the word of truth”, 2Tim 2.15] seek to reconcile, let alone defend such practices that clearly misrepresent the true faith??
If you want to celebrate it as a non-Christrian hioliday, I guess that’s ok. Even though it will be hard to get rid of the “Christian connection” in people’s minds.
Mark C.
From Wikipedia article on Sol Invictus:
I was watching the news and saw how a local church opened it’s doors to help the less fortunate. They were having food and fellowship together. There was a Christmas tree and some of the
Church was wearing a Santa Claus cap.
So the body of Christ will at times do such things and I don’t think it to be so strange.
Ray
you are easily deceived, satan could be behind that too
2 Corinthians 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Exactly. Nothing is unclean of itself. It’s only what people do with it that makes it evil. If someone made an idol out of a tree, it would be the idolatry in that person’s heart and not the tree itself that is evil. Paul likewise says in the same chapter of Romans that one person regards one day above another, while another person regards every day alike. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong about observing one day above another. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying that to observe a secular, human-centered holiday is OK, but to observe a day that has Christian overtones is not. Sorry, but that sounds backwards to me. Why would you prefer human-centered festivities over something that focuses on Christ?
But that is not what “we all well know” as I have been pointing out. That is what some are claiming, but without evidence. Again, there are some pagan elements that have at times have been associated with Christmas, but it was originally designated as a Christian celebration in opposition to the pagan festivals.
How does it misrepresent the true faith? Was Christ not born in a stable in Bethlehem? Did angels not appear to the shepherds? Were there not Magi that came to worship the new-born king? Did he not come to bring “Peace on earth and good will to men” in fulfillment of long-awaited promises? The only thing they had wrong was the date, and they knew that and admitted it, because there was no consensus about when he was born.
Why would you want to? Are you seriously saying it’s better to have a holiday that focuses on greed and commercialism and a mythical fat guy in a red suit bringing presents, rather than one that celebrates the coming of the long-awaited Messiah, and reminds people that the King has come and the Kingdom is coming? And all because some pagans happened to have a festival on the same date? I really don’t understand your reasoning.
But if that’s what you want your desire is coming true more and more as time goes by. When I was a kid you could mention Jesus’ birth on a Christmas special (like Charlie Brown) but today most all you see is Santa and the elves.
By the way, thank you for posting the stuff from Wikipedia. It actually proves my point! If Cardinal Ratzinger is right then there is even more evidence that Christmas is celebrating the birth of Christ. But even if he isn’t, we still have the fact that “Pope Leo I clearly establishes that the two feasts were held on the same day, but that they are also not related.” We also have the fact that Christians “would not participate in the pagan feasts and celebrations…” and “…set themselves directly in opposition to the paganism which ruled the day.”
Mark C.
The tree in the forest, or the lights themselves are not “evil”, whats evil in the eyes of YHWH is the way we use these as representations of pagan festivites.
Idol worship is not limited to the idol itself either, since YHWH is explciit in His people not even observing pagan customs or traditions. Only those Christian rituals/celebrations that His word commands [i.e. baptism, Lord’s Supper]. And no, I am not against birthday, or any other type of SECULAR celebrations!
If it was in opposition to pagan festivals, why wouldn’t they choose a date far removed from all those pagan/winter festivals? And again, Christians of the sound doctrine would not have accepted anything that would have had such loaded connotations. There is no evidence to suggest that Christians before the 4th century celebrated anything resembling the Christmas we have come to know.
Because its the greatest celebration of the Incarnation. We spend the rest opf the year arguing against trinis and Incarnation theology, yet we’re supposed to turn a “blind eye” and more than that, JOIN THEM in this crazy season?
How does Christmas reflect or celebrate Christ’s birth in the stable, Magi, angels, shepherds etc. Point me to specific customs reflective of the Gospel narrative other than reading it?
In answer to your question, its better not to celebrate Christmas or any other non-biblical “Christian” celebatration. I was simply making the point that secular celebrations are the way to go. If anything, your siding with the Pope of today and those of history. At every turn they sought to defend the pagan influence and Incarnation theology of Christmas.
But we don’t use them as representatives of pagan festivals. At least most Christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus don’t.
Do I have to repeat it again? I do not condone pagan customs, but not all customs related to Christmas are pagan.
It wouldn’t be an alternative then, would it?
I don’t know what “loaded connotations” you’re referring to. The connotation is, we choose to celebrate the Son of God on this date instead of the Sun god.
Who said there was?
This is another whole issue. I think it’s possible to celebrate the birth of Christ without it necessarily being about the Incarnation. This is in fact a good opportunity to talk about who the baby Mary gave birth to really was, and how the first glimmer of hope for the promised kingdom came on that night.
Besides the obvious nativity scenes and the older Christmas songs that are about his birth, there is also Christian significance to the tree and some other customs. Have you read the entire article? Have you read all of Dr. Bucher’s articles? If not, please do. If you have, please read them again.
Well, that’s simply not going to happen. And since people are celebrating anyway, I fail to see how focusing it on Christ instead of all the other junk is a problem, as long as we are not worshiping idols.
Really? You think it’s better to let them go on about Santa and greed and going into debt, and remove any reference to the hope of mankind? Sorry, I see no sense in that.
Again with the pagan influence? Please read (or re-read) the articles. Even the stuff you posted yourself supports what I’m saying. I don’t know how to say it any clearer.
Mark C.
“Most [the majority of so-called] Christians” are either trinis or some cult offshoot, you know this I presume? But again, if your of the sound doctrine and have this knowledge regarding the pagan origins of Christmas, why would you JOIN THEM during this season? Can’t you celebrate and advertise the birth of Christ any other season?
How is it an alternative when we the Catholic hybrid “Christianity” that accepted Christmas in the first place is not representative of the true faith?
Name one that is biblical? Albeit the “Nativity” scene since it detones Incarnation theology!
According to all those history book quotes I just posted that’s not what their origin initially signified. If anything, the Son of God was not born anywhere near the winter solstice. All those other gods and their accompanying rituals clearly were!
If you agreed that early Christians did not celebrate Christmas, henceforth they did not observe the birth of the Messiah as such, why should we? Why can’t we just focus on what we are commanded to celebrate as true Christians??
AMEN to that Mark. But we do not have to join in the “Christmas spirit”. Instead, as you said, persuade people to join into the true Spirit of God, based on anyone who confesses the HUMAN Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, whose birth is unknown!
We just agreed that Christmas focuses on the wrong [Incarnational] “God-Christ” Mark. So how is that not “junk” or a form of “worshipping” the wrong personage?
SECULAR celebrations [birthdays, thanksgiving, etc.] and do away with Christmas all together! I did not mean divest it of the so-called Christian symbolism [albeit a corrupted one since its an Incarnational one at that].
You keep referring me to those other articles, why don’t we focus on the virgin birth narratives? Every history book tells you Christmas is pagan influenced, as the quotes suggest. Am I missing something here??
Then I won’t waste my time repeating myself when you haven’t even considered my viewpoint.
Mark C.
Your “viewpoint” is fallacious. Just because some scholar supports it as well does not divert from what scripture has to say about it. Our evidence, as you yourself point to many times, has to inevitably come back to what the scriptures say. No standard works [sources] that I know of supports the view that Christmas was created as some type of “alternative/opposition” to the pagan festivals which orthodox [Catholic] Christianity assimilated and eventually made its own.
Even if their intention was to create a “pure alternative”, it did not work. They ended up with a mostly pagan set of customs and traditions, with “Christ’s” name thrown into the mix. That to me does not define alternative or opposing beliefs.
Why do you trust this “Christian church” of the 4th century which, according to you, created Christmas as an alternative to the established pagan rites? As you know, this is the same “Church” which eventually formulated the Nicea-Constantinopolitan creeds that still infects our faith to this day.
Just want to reiterate the simple fact: assimilation/blending of belief systems is different than creating an alternative/opposing system of festivities!
Robert, it’s true that I am so easily decieved. I wonder if that church that had a Christmas tree in it’s basement and was feeding the less fortunate were doing things with a similar motive as the apostle Paul and a few others in the church with him, were in Acts 21:24.
I thought I saw somewhat of a similarity in their behavior.
Xavier,
I’ve pointed out before that Scripture doesn’t say anything about it. You’re right, no standard works that you know of supports my view. But you haven’t even bothered to look at what I presented as evidence, and yet you continue to argue against my viewpoint and label it as “fallacious.” Your attitude seems to be, “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.” This whole discussion has been a waste of time.
Mark wrote
“And the custom described in Jer. 10 is talking about carving idols out of the trees they cut down. “…They cut a tree out of the forest, AND A SKILLED WORKER SHAPES IT WITH A CHISEL.†This is not talking about the custom of hanging things on a tree, which is a much later custom.”
I fail to see how you come up with this statement out of what it says. have you used a translation that has a need to change this to support their own transgessions.
3 For the customs [1] of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. 5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good
About Christmas, there always seems to be somebody that’s going to draw some lines around somebody like in the TV commercial where the banker tells a child not to ride the bicycle outside the predetermined lines.
Robert,
I was using the same translation that Xavier had originally quoted from, which is the NIV. Other translations have “axe” but the NASB and the NLT have “cutting tool” which could be either an axe or a chisel. The Amplified Bible says “axe or other tool.”
In any case they cut down the tree and made an idol out of it. That is clear from the context. Besides, idols carved from trees was common in Old Testament times, while the Christmas tree as we know it did not exist until hundreds of years later, as I mentioned, and is not worshiped as an idol by Christians who celebrate Christ’s birth.
Mark C.
Sorry that this has been a total waste of YOUR time Mark, although it has not been a waste of time for me. I think I know what the problem is and have been able to see where it is that we disagree. Its unfortunate though that you are not willing to answer my arguments regarding the definition of the “Christian church” of the 4th century.
The FACTS are simple: an already corrupted Catholic Orthodox “Church” was willing to take on pagan rituals in order to “sell” their own brand of “Christianity” to a pagan world. The sound doctrine had been forsaken centuries before. You know this, I know this, and any STANDARD history work dealing with Christianity will tell you this.
A funny thing happened recently where I asked a Christian family [of the sound doctrine] if they knew about this matter regarding the origins of Christmas etc. The wife didn’t know but her husband [a pastor] did. Funny thing was this, she looked at him surprised and exclaimed: “If you knew about this why didn’t you tell me and why have we been celebrating it?”
The story is funny but it also shows what happens when our Christian conscience is awakened!
Mark
It has been shown by many that it has existed long before even this reference.egyptian history shows this custom. this doesnt speak of an idol being carved it speak of a tree being cut down and fasten by nails so it cant fall over and then decked with silver and gold.
you choose to follow translations where there is no historical support and use other verse to try to connect other customs with this one.
robert
I think the focus of Jer 10 is not in the vague association it makes with the Christmas tree of today, but with the simple prohibition by YHWH to steer away from “customs and practices of other nations” leading to idol worship.
The crux of the matter is that Christmas is an ASSIMILATION/BLENDING of orthodox [Catholic] “Christianity” with the already established pagan rites [customs/practices] of 4th century Europe.
As for Christmas today, we all know that the only seemingly Christian element is the “Nativity scene”, which in turn celebrates “Christ’s arrival as God in the flesh”. Incarnational theology to be sure!
Either way, thank goodness we are not commanded to celebrate Christmas, its a personal preference/observance. But if we claim to be of the sound doctrine, and have this knowledge, to me that would mean “sleeping with the enemy”.
Xavier
I believe every aspect of false doctrine is to be rebuked, anything short of 100% true doctrine is in fact still sleeping with the enemy.
this discussion is not just for the benefit of bringing Mark to the truth, its for anyone willing to forsake tradition for the truth. so all false doctrine needs to be addressed for the benefit of others that are seeking the truth.
robert,
As long as we “speak the truth in love” [Eph 4.15].
To Mark:
Mark, I am comparing apples to apples. Any ancient pagan festival doesn’t suddenly become acceptable when one turns its symbols into Biblical ones. I cannot draw Jesus with the pagan Helios nimbus and Christianize it by reminding objectors of Jesus being the “Light of the world.†I cannot take the Yule log, decorate it with apples and turn it into the Tree of Life in Genesis. The same goes with using pagan symbols like eggs and rabbits to symbolize the “New Life†we gain due to Christ’s sacrifice. I couldn’t care less if 16th century ignorant masses used Christian symbols in their plays which already existed in Christianized paganism. Dechristianizing an already Christianized pagan festival doesn’t suddenly sanctify it.
It would also be dishonest to pick certain elements from a festival which in themselves might not be harmful and then under that pretense hypocritically celebrate that festival. We know that fasting can be a very good thing. We also know that, as Christians we need to be self-sacrificing and generous. So, Mark, following your and Angela’s good examples, why don’t we all join the Muslims next year in their Ramadan celebrations? We’ll fast, say our prayers (we all can do with some extra praying, you know) and on Eid-ul Adha, we dish out some sweet meets. What do you say? We can start a new Christian tradition like those 16th century Christian playwrights and, who knows, we’ll convert the Islamic masses!
You see, being in the Truth involves more than religious truth. It involves truth in reality. In reality Christ was not born on December 25. In reality apostate Christendom from before Constantine have been borrowing and fornicating with their demon-possessed neighbors. I don’t know about you, brother, but I won’t fiddle around in bear-manure to pick undigested berries to eat. Nor will I fiddle around in dark Christian tradition to see what I can pick out to enjoy with the ignorant masses. My God and Christ-in-Paul told faithful Christians TO NOT EVEN TOUCH the unclean thing (2 Cor. 6:17, 18).
Your reference to the silence in Scripture forbidding us to celebrate Christ’s birth has nothing to do with the issue. If you want to celebrate it, do it in a proper way. Choose a week in October during which some of us might choose to fast, and deeply meditate the birth of our King. The TIMING will be right, the SOURCE will be accurate, and the METHOD will be sound. People’s reactions to it will demonstrate their MOTIVE. If you did it this way, believe me, none of this debating would have occurred. Angela’s cooperation will also be much appreciated.
I have read your whole article. You don’t like Hislop, well, I don’t like Bucher. All the elements in Christmas celebrations are definitely no mere coincidences. It was a tendency of the time and the influences and compromises were made. NOWHERE does Joseph Smith state that Amerindian folklore was the source of his “golden plates†and “magic spectacles†ideas. But it was hype in his time and he got swept along with it. Bucher defends Christmas’ non-influence as many a Mormon try to defend their prophet’s non-influence by Amerindian folklore. The coincidence is simply too overwhelming and decisive. Quoting ancient infamous popes who defend their own conviction is like quoting Osama bin Laden defending Islamic imperialism. MUCH more faithful evidence defending the innocent copying of the date and what-not will be necessary to prove your point.
Similarity is not the only point, Mark. The combination of similarities, along with characters and symbolisms HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRIST’S BIRTH is what makes the connection so decisive. Eating pork and codfish etc. is not wrong in themselves. Likewise, eating goat’s meat is not wrong in itself, BUT, eating goat’s meat of a goat slaughtered during an African burial ceremony, chanting songs praising the Great Spirit and wearing black with strips of impala skin around your wrists does not go off as innocent fun, pal. In themselves there’s nothing wrong doing those things. In the RELIGIOUS CONTEXT everything of it is wrong, since the connection is irrefutably evident.
You see, your arguments are also anachronistic. No one attached Krampus to Christmas traditions. Christmas traditions emerged from merging Christianity and paganism. And it is not only Hyslop saying it. Neander does also and Bucher is a rookie compared to Neander. Bucher will not trump the excellent research already done on the matter.
Your reference to Romans 14:5 doesn’t add up, sorry. He was not unscrupulously sanctioning condoning and partaking of pagan festivals. His words in 2 Cor. 6 clearly proves the opposite. He was writing with former Jewish practices in mind. Practices that used to be holy and approved by Yahweh which certain Christians still felt sentimental about. Nothing about paganism, man.
You wrote:
Really? What about infant baptism, purgatory, the papal mitre, priestly garb, 40 days after a person’s death, haloes around saints, canonizing saints, holy water, pagan architecture in church, Lent, Easter, worship of relics…were all these in “opposition†to the ancient practices? Or do you say that all these are compromises and ONLY Christmas was an “alternative?â€
I simply see nothing good in playing around what is unclean for the sake of the few clean things around them. I see no reason why we should integrate as much as possible for the sake of not standing out as different and putting the ignorant ones off. Being different and holy for the sake of Yah is better than seeking approval from men based on rationalizing crucial issues.
You know, even with all the evidence aside would the Christian “using the Bible as his guide†think twice before celebrating Christmas on December 25. Jesus was not born then…you’re not celebrating his birth…whatever you’re celebrating, it’s not his birth…follow the Bible and celebrate his birth sometime in October…your reasons will be more valid for doing it then.
I agree with this here. No one would use banners with Crusader crucifixes on as a missionary emblem and think they will convert Syria to Christianity. The crucifix may be Christian, missionary work is a Christian work, and you might be proclaiming sound doctrine. But all that is associated with it makes it more a cause of stumbling than of edifying. As Xavier said, if you want to celebrate it as a secular holiday, do so, but DO NOT use the Bible to justify the pretence from a Christian perspective.
Xavier, thanks for the Encyclopaedia Britannica reference. Mark, if none of these useless little add-ons have any meaning for you, if what you inherited and found to be unrelated to the very birth of Christ, WHY USE THEM? If these are so meaningless that you expect us to ignore them, well, prove it and get rid of these meaningless vanities and celebrate the birth of Christ closer to the time in a more Hebraic fashion. We’re talking tradition, aren’t we?
Just finally: I did not compare you with Richard Dawkins. I compared arguments, and the way you reasoned sounded similar to some of the stuff he comes up with. Save Christmas, your other articles testify of very good research. This has been a gauntlet, I agree, but sometimes this is necessary. It was not uncommon among ancient Christians (especially Jewish Christians) to fervently debate matters. I hope you change your mind of viewing it as a waste of time.
Still your brother,
Jaco
Jaco,
Thanx for your very studious and thought provoking post. Great comments and quotes. Have a query regarding your comment that:
Paul makes the point in 1Cor 8 that the eating of food that has been used in pagan rituals is fine, since:
How do you interpret Paul’s teaching here that its ok for the [strong] Christian to eat in a pagan setting, as long as he doesn’t cause his [weak] brother to stumble?
Jaco,
What I viewed as a waste of time was repeating myself and my arguments to Xavier who hadn’t even bothered to read the viewpoints he was denouncing.
I appreciate the fact that you at least read my article. Since you “don’t like Bucher” there’s not much else to say. We could go on quoting sources through the new year and wouldn’t convince each other. I haven’t read Neander, but every other source I have looked at that wasn’t predisposed to the anti-Christmas position and had some kind of research behind it agreed with me on the main points. This is not something we can use Scripture as our standard for, since there is nothing in the Bible for or against celebrating the birth of Christ.
But the most important thing is this. Regardless of what kind of pagan idolatrous rituals have been associated with Christmas over the years, hardly anybody observes them that way today. For at least several hundred years Christians have celebrated the birth of Christ at this time of year, and have worshiped God because of it, even thought they know it is not the real date (since most agree that we don’t know the real date for sure).
You ask, “if what you inherited and found to be unrelated to the very birth of Christ, WHY USE THEM?” First of all, that depends on which things you’re referring to. It has been pointed out that a tree has nothing to do with Christ’s birth, but as you’ll see in Part 2 which I posted today, there is more Christian tradition behind it than many realize.
As for some of the other things, like lights and tinsel and decorations that are not specifically either Christian or pagan, my answer is, “Why not?” If they are not used as idols or pagan rituals, and can be used as part of your worship, there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that forbids it.
You guys keep quoting Scriptures about avoiding idolatry, and I agree with all of it. But just because there were pagan rituals on the same day, and some people used certain things in idolatrous practice does not mean that those things must never again be used by Christians to worship God. As Bucher wrote (see Part 2), some of those things, like evergreens and holly and mistletoe, were originally created by God before they were corrupted by pagans. So why can’t Christians reclaim them for God, if there is nothing intrinsically evil about the things themselves. It’s how you use them and how you think about them that makes them evil or not. Anything can become an idol, but also anything that is an idol to one person can still be used by someone else to honor God. This is the essence of Christian freedom from legalism.
Nevertheless this has been debated for hundreds of years, so I don’t expect you to change your mind any time soon. This is not a matter of right or wrong doctrine, it’s simply a matter of choosing whether or not to observe a tradition. Not all traditions are inherently evil and pagan. To continue to accuse God-loving Christians of idolatry in such matters is to be unnecessarily judgmental (not that you’re doing that). And such legalism and narrow-mindedness is one of the traits that give Christianity a bad name.
Mark C.
I didn’t need to read your article since you were expressing the arguments and viewpoints here. Furthermore, Jaco and I are in agreement.
Which “Christians”? The same ones who trace their doctrinal origins to Nicea?
Which “God”? The “triune God” they created?
The Jer. 10 passage tells us that some of the PAGAN “customs and traditions” involved using these items to decorate their “trees”.
So are you telling me that Encyclopedias and Dictionaries have a predisposition to anti-Christmas bias? What “every other source” that you have looked at are you referring to? You keep telling me to read ONE ARTICLE based on ONE [so-called] SCHOLAR, Bucher. I, now along with Jaco, have given you various SECULAR and non-secular sources.
“As Bucher wrote (see Part 2), some of those things, like evergreens and holly and mistletoe, were originally created by God before they were corrupted by pagans. So why can’t Christians reclaim them for God, if there is nothing intrinsically evil about the things themselves.”
Mark
these things never needed to be reclaimed before or after Jesus. there is nothing evil about them and never was. it is the human use of them as symbols that make them evil because God warned us not to use them in the worship of him. this is the first way using them is evil.
the second way is some of them actually was used to worship false gods and to reclaim them in the name of God is forbidin by the first way that use of them are evil
you have a weak understanding of what is being spoke of in the unclean and clean considering Paul states later to not touch the unclean. did the people he told this correct him if your viwe is right. he was speaking of natural things that should not be deemed unclean because man made unclean things from them. what God created is always clean till man or angel pollutes it .
if God wanted to reclaim anything i am sure it would be simple for him to have done that himself without our help.
Mark
your view of Romans 14 makes 2 Corinthians 6
14 an impossible verse and also makes Paul out to not be devinely inspired.
which one provides the context for the unclean considering Paul didnt say in 2 Corinthians 6
14 to be fully persuded that nothing is unclean first before touching that which is deemed unclean or never mentioned reclaiming it first for God before touching it
2 Corinthians 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 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. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
I said several times that what I posted here was only a condensed excerpt of a larger article that gave more detail, and that Bucher had several articles dealing with the subject. Your mind is made up, so you felt no need to actually consider or understand the viewpoint which you denounce.
So because the Roman Catholic Church has doctrinal errors, you judge the heart behind every idea of every Christian for the last two millennia? And for your information, many of the modern Christmas traditions come from Protestants, not Catholics, and there are even quite a few Biblical Unitarians who also celebrate Christ’s birth at Christmas.
As I said, the context shows it’s talking about making idols out of trees, but the Christmas tree, which came along hundreds of years later, is not such an idol.
No, I’m saying that some sources do, and those that don’t are in agreement with my viewpoint.
If you bothered reading my and Bucher’s writings you’d know.
Actually, I recommended you read my article and SEVERAL articles by Dr. Bucher. On what basis do you call him a “so-called” scholar? Where did you receive your doctorate from? If you want to disagree that’s your privilege, but resorting to ad hominem attacks just weakens your stance. Besides, his credentials as a scholar are not even the point. If you’d read the articles you’d know that he looked at many different sources to come up with his viewpoint.
Some of your sources merely reiterated your arguments with no documentation. Those that had documentation only proved that there was pagan idolatry and that it has been mixed with Christian traditions in some cases since then, not that Christmas was a direct descendant of it. And some of your sources even corroborated my viewpoint.
But as I said to Jaco, this has been debated for hundreds of years, so I don’t expect you to change your mind any time soon. But at least Jaco had the courtesy to read the material and then respond to it.
Mark C.
ummm….YES?!! Like I said previously, its your choice if you want to join them in this pagan influenced season. I do not judge anyone to “heaven or hell” if they do or not, just as I do not judge anyone who is not of the sound doctrine. But one thing I do know, if your not of the sound doctrine your not a Christian, and you will be judged accordingly.
PS: Catholic-Protestants share the same doctrinal core beliefs of the Trinity, so you tell me if their “Christians”.
I was referring to your comment regarding trees or idols being decorated by lights, mistletoes etc.
I know your probably going to tell me to read the article, but could you please just name some of those sources that are in agreement with you here so others can see? I myself have limited the quotes to unbiased, secular sources. They, as well as any history book, will tell you the same story regarding the BLENDING of pagan/[Catholic] Christian origins to Christmas!
So, this all comes down to me reading your and Bucher’s articles? Well, like I said, Jaco and I are in agreement, so what does that tell you? I’m sorry if you think I am biased and narrow-minded about this, but I have read way too many UNbiased soruces on this theme and they all disagree with your views.
Here’s what Andrew McGowan has to say on “How December 25 Became Christmas”. He is Warden and President of Trinity (so you know where he’s coming from) College at the University of Melbourne.
This is an article from the Biblical Archeological Review: http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/christmas.asp
A few nuggets: the most popular theory on how did the church settle on December 25th is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. But McGowan doesn’t really think so (he’s all for Christmas of course).
A few interesting quotes:
Xavier writes…ummm….YES?!! Like I said previously, its your choice if you want to join them in this pagan influenced season. I do not judge anyone to “heaven or hell†if they do or not, just as I do not judge anyone who is not of the sound doctrine. But one thing I do know, if your not of the sound doctrine your not a Christian, and you will be judged accordingly
Response- Sound doctrine, I take it from these discussions on Christmas that Biblical Unitarians believe they possess it, the truth. And speaking of Christmas Jaco wrote that he Paul and John shared the same opinion on the issue but if one holds sound doctrine then agreement with the writers of the Bible would seem to be a necessity.
Yet there seems to be some disagreement among BU’s on Christmas and even though it’s only one day of the year and that leaves 364 more to battle Trinitarians with the truth it still represents the incarnation as Xavier wrote “Because its the greatest celebration of the Incarnation. We spend the rest of the year arguing against trinis and Incarnation theology, yet we’re supposed to turn a “blind eye†and more than that, JOIN THEM in this crazy season?
So it seems the argument can be made that this one day is a microcosm of the rest of the year and those that hold sound doctrine should never compromise as Jaco mockingly wrote as a warning “I love Christian freedom…everything goes. I can perform whatever demonology I want to, invoking only faithful messengers of Yahweh. He knows my motives, doesn’t he? My neighbors might think I’m an inter-religious New Age guru. Don’t we all stand for the New Age of the cosmic Christ anyway? Who cares what people think? Who cares about outward impressions?â€
But wait, there it is again on this board that possesses sound doctrine, the term “cosmic Christ†used to mock false doctrine when it has been used to hold together sound doctrine as Sean wrote “What Mark and I are doing is trying to hold together all of the Scriptures. This practice is called biblical theology in contradistinction to the liberal approach which jettisons the bits that don’t fit their sensitivities. Splitting apart Jesus’ earthly ministry from his role as cosmic Son of Man who is destined to judge the world is not an option open to us “and “with the word cosmic concerning both something extra-terrestrial and something massively significantâ€
So the group that holds the truth cannot agree on Christmas and or the cosmic Christ.
I observed several months ago and wrote that†I have always been sadly impressed with the ability of Trinitarians to use words not found in scripture to explain the ones that are used. But I must say that Biblical Unitarians are giving them some good competition in this area. I had a lengthy conversation with leading BU teacher that tried to explain to me that Jesus is “God’s ultimate human agent of the new exalted humanity of the spirit with divine authorityâ€
Of course there is no scripture calling Jesus “God’s ultimate human agent of the new exalted humanity of the spirit with divine authority†but why let that get in the way.â€
So as Xavier wrote…I do not judge anyone who is not of the sound doctrine. But one thing I do know, if your not of the sound doctrine your not a Christian, and you will be judged accordingly.
Does this group represent true Christianity?
Xavier,
All the arguments about adopting pagan customs amount to nothing but straw man arguments. No Christian who celebrates the birth of Christ at this time participates in idolatrous practices, and to continue making that accusation is judgmental and divisive.
You say “Catholic-Protestants share the same doctrinal core beliefs of the Trinity, so you tell me if their ‘Christians’.” It is not my place to make that judgment, nor is it yours. And their belief in the Trinity has little to do with their celebration of Christmas. While there are some references to the Incarnation by some Trinitarians, it is by no means universal. The vast majority of Christmas greetings and songs speak of God giving us His Son. And I noticed you brushed aside my point that there are even Biblical Unitarians who celebrate the birth of Christ at Christmas.
Your accusations would be bad enough if it were just a matter of us having differing opinions about Christmas. But I was flabbergasted that you see nothing wrong with saying that you DO in fact “judge the heart behind every idea of every Christian for the last two millennia.” I’m not talking about discerning right and wrong doctrine. I’m talking about judging their hearts, which you do without knowledge of what is in their hearts. There’s nothing more I can say or do but pray for you. It seems your zeal for your viewpoint has blinded you to the fault of such statements. I leave you with Paul’s words:
Rom. 14:
4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Xavier, I will explain what I think Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 8
He starts off saying that knowledge is important, but even more so, is love. So that knowledge of something without regard of another person puffs up. Add love, and one’s conduct will build up (8:1-3)
He then states that our allegiance to God and Christ is non-negotiable. We have only them we serve, thus will our actions mean nothing else but to worship our God and his Christ. (8:4-6)
Many people don’t know whom we serve. They will judge our status of worship from our conduct alone. If any of those people, being used to and thus sensitive to these rituals, see us, they’ll judge us as idol worshippers. (8:7)
Eating or not eating does not contribute in any way to our approval before God. (8:8)
But, since our eating and behavior does influence the status of approval of others before God, we’ll think twice before doing something that might give them wrong impressions about us, and about the God we serve. In the end we won’t be pleasing anyone, not even God. We have nothing to “prove,†no additional righteousness to attain by doing something which in itself (eating) might not be wrong, but may be stumbling to a brother. In the end a non-sinful act (eating) becomes sin (stumbling a brother).
Something else I’d like to add: Paul is speaking about eating only, regardless of the origin of the “meat.†He is not trivializing eating IN CELEBRATION of some idol. Eating in celebration of an idol is not at issue here. He makes it clear by stating that the allegiance of the person he uses as an example is with God and Christ alone.
Secondly, Paul, the former scribe, knew very well that Christianizing what is idolatrous is unacceptable (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), hence the difference in setting between the 1 Cor. 8 illustration and 2 Cor 6 admonition.
Thirdly, we need to have a correct understanding of the expression “weak conscience.†We tend to think in terms of weak=bad, strong=good. We all want to be good, don’t we? The immature reaction, though, would be to unscrupulously disregard the prodding of our consciences and do whatever we want to. See, our pretending to be strong won’t make us score Brownie points with Yahweh. Jesus ended performance-based righteousness. What we need to do is to be honest with ourselves and our consciences. If we don’t, our disregarding our consciences might result in sinning against God and Christ. A better way to understand the weak/strong notion of our consciences is to see it in terms of sensitivity. What Paul is actually saying is that those with sensitive consciences might be stumbled, which we don’t want to do. For the sake of Christ and his sheep, I’d rather not drink or eat, than to please only myself (Rom 15:1-3).
What we’re discussing here does have a bearing on an aspect of our Christmas debate, but not the whole matter. The notion of maintaining a celebration soaked in paganism is at issue, as well as the necessity of whether established tradition, however inaccurate and different in meaning today, should be celebrated in Christian honesty.
What stands out here is that many of us have a desire to celebrate the birth of our King, Christ Jesus. I recommended a way in doing it in one of my previous posts. What is your take on it?
In Christ,
Jaco
Michael,
To differ in itself is not wrong. Unity and uniformity at all cost, suppressing dissent and healthy questioning is one of the hallmarks of abusive religion. We see this unhealthy cult-like spiritual oppression across the spectrum of Christian religions, ranging from Mormonism, the Watchtower, and especially many evangelical sects. So, there’s no need to frown upon our debating here. It’s good and it encourages maturity.
My usage of “cosmic Christ†is perhaps not the way Sean used it. I used it as those of the New Age tend to see the Christ as the one provided by the Universal Spirit to bring enlightenment to the world (New Age understanding of enlightenment).
You reference the technically loaded summary by a Biblical Unitarian. If the loaded theological lingo is what Trinitarianism and Biblical Unitarianism have in common, well, I think that’s where it ends. What they don’t have in common is stating loaded theological lingo in still biblically sound and valid language confirmed by Scripture. You see, as a field owning its place in academics, technical terms is sometimes necessary. But converting those terms into day-to-day language still proves its validity. Something trinitarians cannot do with their confessions, and certainly not what other sects can do with their “theocratic language.â€
Mark,
You said,
I’m afraid this goes both ways. If you want to fiddle around bear-manure to pick still-edible undigested berries, that’s your prerogative. You’re taking Romans 14 too far. If you truly want to exult Yahweh and His Messiah, do it the proper way, and not the way of the ignorant masses of ages long gone. As much as you accuse Xavier of things he never said, you’ve made yourself guilty of trivializing crucial matters and brushing those aside.
I’d like to get your opinion on my suggestion in my previous post. I believe that all of this bickering will be resolved if we do it the Biblical Hebraic way, and not in a way initiated by believers in the dark and abused and corrupted by demonic agents throughout the ages.
Your brother,
Jaco
Mark C.
So many posts so little time. Agree, we’re in a small minority even among our fellow “brethren”.
No one is judging people’s hearts. I was answering YES to your comment regarding the Roman Catholic Church and their false doctrines. All I am talking about is “discerning right and wrong doctrine.” I am not bypassing Judgment Day and making judgment calls regarding “who’s in and who’s out”. That’s why we have 2 resurrections, and 2 seperate Judgment Days. First for the “household of God” [1Pe 4.17], the second for the rest of the world.
Jaco
I personally do not have a desire to celebrate Jesus’ birth, especially when I do not know when he was actually born. But to those who do, my advice is similar to yours. Pick any other month or day that is not so loaded with such a terribly paganistic history as the winter solstice. Now as to what the actual celebration would involve [fasting, prayer etc.] I really do not have a clue. Its hard when there is zero biblical pointers for help. Maybe a re-reading of the birth accounts, prayer, and a feast? Who knows…
Just another question regarding Paul’s teaching on eating meat sacrificized to idols. In 1Cor 10.27-30 he says:
Are these to be taken as rhetorical questions meaning what exactly? First, he says we should be considerate of others but then that he himself is not “judged by another’s conscience?”
2 Corinthians 6
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 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. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty
Has anyone ever pondered just how we are to seperate from the unGodly without judging others.
there is a detailed outline of what God expects of his children, it is not our judgement that identifies the children of God its GODS. God also gave us a detailed outline to idenitify the children of satan and if we see that someone possess the works of satan and we idenitify them using the outline then we are not judging them but are following God’s judgement. all these identifying marks will show up on the outward person because the inward person always cast a shadow on the outward appearance of a person. so if you are identifying by using the tools God gave us then the Judgement is God’s not ours.
So for those who constantly use this for an excuse everytime they are shown the error of their ways, let me say to them that the Judgement was pregiving by God to identify who’s child they are
“ay, there’s the rub”…
“ay, there’s the rubâ€â€¦
Xavier
please clarify this quote so we can see if your using it in context or if it is used to mean something different in your part of the world. its not common amongst my part of the world.
Jaco writes… there’s no need to frown upon our debating here. It’s good and it encourages maturity.
Response- I am not frowning on debate in fact I hearten it but BU’s seem to be experts on every error of the trinity and fairly loose with their own.
Jaco writes… My usage of “cosmic Christ†is perhaps not the way Sean used it.
Response- The term “cosmic Christ†has no use.
Jaco writes… If the loaded theological lingo is what Trinitarianism and Biblical Unitarianism have in common, well, I think that’s where it ends.
Response- Loaded theological lingo is not where your similarity with Trinitarians ends, it where error begins. It’s your denial of the adequacy of the God inspired words of scripture to reveal itself.
Jaco writes of Trinitarians… What they don’t have in common is stating loaded theological lingo in still biblically sound and valid language confirmed by Scripture.
Response- The BU teacher that wrote of Jesus as “God’s ultimate human agent of the new exalted humanity of the spirit with divine authority†has not used biblically sound and valid language confirmed by Scripture, he has used words not found in scripture.
The different non biblical words used by Unitarians and Trinitarians happen for the exact same reason, to explain the nature of Jesus which again is because both groups realize the original writers failed to adequately explain their groups conclusion on the nature of Jesus.
Everyone knows what it means for someone to have a son so I have asked many times on this board how God who is not a human being could have a Son that is one and most gave examples of how they are fathers to their children, even Anthony Buzzard said in a teaching tape that God was biologically the Father of Jesus.
So I asked if Jesus were God’s ontological Son, if God had given part of Himself to the conception of Jesus and was chastised for using the obscure word ontological, a problem Jaco does not seem to have and the spirit of good debating leading to maturity ended there.
Maybe you could help clarify some of these Unitarian beliefs.
Jaco wrote…
As I’ve pointed out there is no “proper” way, much less a “Biblical Hebrew” way, of celebrating the birth of Christ since there is no mention of it in either the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures. And your reference to “ignorant masses” is not only supercilious and patronizing but shows little understanding of history. Furthermore, your assumption that all Christian traditions are “initiated by believers in the dark” is again one-sided and ignoring the traditions that were initiated by Christians who had no involvement with idolatry but only wanted to celebrate God’s gift of His Son.
As for celebrating at another time of year, you again miss the point of offering an alternative. People of many different cultures have had celebrations this time of year for various reasons. Today it’s become a mostly meaningless occasion to spend lots of money and have portrayals of Santa and the reindeer. Christians just want to remind them of the better reason for celebrating, which they have had for several hundred years.
___________
Xavier wrote…
My comment regarding the Roman Catholic Church was, “So because the Roman Catholic Church has doctrinal errors, you judge the heart behind every idea of every Christian for the last two millennia?” That is what you answered “ummm….YES?!!” to.
And now you turn around and say, “No one is judging people’s hearts.” But that is exactly what you are doing. Maybe not regarding “who’s in and who’s out” but you judge their hearts and motives regarding something that is neither commanded nor forbidden in the Bible. You continue to accuse Christians who worship the true God and celebrate the birth of Christ of embracing pagan idolatry. That’s just wrong. Plus, you haven’t even bothered to look into the evidence, which Prov. 18:13 says is a folly and a shame.
You say you’re talking about “discerning right and wrong doctrine” which I specifically said is not the point. This is NOT a doctrinal issue since there is no doctrine about celebrating Christ’s birth. And don’t come back with “avoiding idolatry is a doctrinal issue” because that’s just begging the question of whether a Christian celebrating Christmas is idolatry. We’re going in circles here, and just repeating ourselves. There’s no more I can say that I haven’t said repeatedly already.
Mark C.
Then why “celebrate” it at all?!! I thought you viewed it as an “alternative/opposing” “Christian celebration” to paganism?
First of all, the Bible commands believers to remain pure and holy, which sets us apart from the world. That is, looking, sounding and ACTING [practicing] LIKE THE WORLD!!! This is actually what our Lord Messiah fervently prays for in John 17 and Paul admonishes time and time again:
Secondly, I explained to you what I meant by my previous answer about judging people’s hearts. Something only God and Christ can and will do!
As long as you support Christmas and fail to define those so-called “Christians” [and “Church] who adopted it back in the 4th century, your doctrine regarding this particular subject will remain UNSOUND to me! So I guess we’ll agree to disagree in a loving, brotherly way. Since I hold no grudges or resentment towards anyone who may disagree with me regarding any subject.
Peace I leave you…and have a safe holiday.
I’ve handled every point in your post before, from “why celebrate it?” to not judging Christians to be embracing idolatry, including the fact that Christians trying to bring the focus back to Jesus instead of Santa and presents IS in fact setting themselves apart from the world. I’ve said repeatedly that it is a matter of personal choice and not doctrine, but you still call it “my doctrine.” Like I said, there’s nothing more I can say that I haven’t said already. As you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
God bless us everyone! 🙂
2 Timothy 4
4I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
The truth spoken of here is what is found in the scriptures and is what sound doctrine is.
Mark so your right by saying christmas is no biblical doctrine ,its a fable started by men whether or not it is identical to a festival that is pack with pagan idolatry.
It is the Word of God that judges and is what we should use to repove all things by and rebuke all professed christians when they turn their ear away from the truth of Gods written word.
A valid argument to this would be if there was a Trinity day festival every year, with all the same accoutrements as that of Christmas. Would anyone join in the celebrations?
By the way, here are excerts from the Pope’s latest Christmas message, defining “the mystery of Christmas” [sound familiar, hint hint…TRINITY] as “God…a helpless child, to be freely welcomed to our hearts”:
Xavier,
A trinity day festival would not be comparable. First, it wouldn’t be celebrating something that actually happened, as Christmas does (albeit not on the actual date which is not known for certain). Second, since it would not be celebrating a birth, it wouldn’t function as an alternative or replacement for the celebration of the birth of Sol Invictus. (BTW there is a Trinity Sunday on the church calendar, but it isn’t made nearly as big a deal as Christmas or Easter.)
Not that I’m a big fan of the Pope, but you seem to have missed his point as well. He wasn’t talking about the Trinity, he was talking about the paradox of becoming like little children rather than conquering with weapons, which is a valid point regardless of whether you think Jesus is God or His Son.
(He also mentioned how Christmas “took the place of the Roman festival” rather than it being a Roman festival that they just “baptized,” which is what other historical sources say. But I know you don’t believe that.)
You seem to want to denounce everything that anyone who doesn’t have the whole truth says. The Bible says to prove all things and hold fast that which is good. To make a valid argument, you need to really understand what the opposing viewpoint is all about. Otherwise you end up just making straw man arguments, which is what most of your position has been so far. It would really behoove you to seriously look into what Christians actually believe about Christmas, if for no other reason than to be able to have an informed debate.
Robert, beware of legalism. There was no legalism in the beginning.
Ray
as long as its scripturely sound i dont care how others classify it
Mark C.
I rather side with the silence of scripture regarding the actual day of our Lord’s birth instead of joining and supporting a clearly pagan induced holiday with other so-called “Christians”. Its interesting that the scriptures gives us no date at all regarding the birth, why do you think that is?
I see you have slightly modified your “alternative/opposing” view of Christmas to a “replacement” one. As I have said from the beginning, it was an assimilation/blending of pagan and orthodoxy that took place. Hence, a “substitution/replacement” of ancient pagan rituals and Catholic mass rites. I never said Christmas was an actual Roman [pagan] festival as you view the Pope’s comments.
One of the points of the article is being like “little children”. But if you want to be selective so as to defend the Pope and Christmas and totally ignore the context which it has [“how God as a child shows us humility”, i.e. the Incarnation], that shows your bias towards my disagreement.
The day I do not denounce what the Pope or any other orthodox has to say regarding the Incarnation, is the day I either side with them or die! I cannot believe you are supporting this horrendous Catholic message of what Christmas is all about to those who celebrate, the Incarnation. Which is the point of my posting the Pope’s message.
I have studied the matter, checked the history books, consulted with unbiased commentators, Encyclopedias, Dictionaries etc. So how have I been making “straw man arguments”? If you do not simply agree there’s no need to accuse or try to debunk my arguments. Simply disagree!!
Again, I would ask you to define those “Christians” you keep referring to. Like the Pope, those who clearly celebrate it for what it is, the Incarnation of God becoming man and how that is supposed to show us humility! Although, you are correct to point out that unfortunately some of my BU brethren join this silly season, they nonetheless do it [I hope] with a clear knowledge of who the Son of God actually is.
Here’s a couple of doozies jus to prove my point yet again of how Christmas’ message of “God becoming a man” should show the “Christian” how to live:
That is not a modification. Something that is an alternative and in opposition to something else will eventually replace it if the opposition continues. And that is much different from an assimilation/blending.
I responded to your evidence in post 56 above:
“Some of your sources merely reiterated your arguments with no documentation. Those that had documentation only proved that there was pagan idolatry and that it has been mixed with Christian traditions in some cases since then, not that Christmas was a direct descendant of it. And some of your sources even corroborated my viewpoint.”
But as I have repeated over and over again, regardless of what some pagans did hundreds of years ago, Christians today who celebrate Christmas do not practice pagan idolatry, yet you continue to say they do.
And while there may be some who play up the Trinity/Incarnation aspect, it is by no means the majority. As I said, most Christmas songs and greetings are about God giving His Son. And even if it were, that doesn’t mean we can’t celebrate the birth of Jesus just because Trinitarians do too. Are you going to refuse to do everything else that Trinitarians do?
As for defining the Christians I’m referring to, I’m talking about those who confess Jesus as Lord, and believe that he is the Son of God and that God raised him from the dead. Whether they believe he is also God the Son has no bearing on the issue at hand. We celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ either way.
The many accusations and assumptions you have made in your posts show that you do not fully understand what most Christians believe about Christmas. I have pointed out specific examples in many of my posts, if you’d care to reread them. And you even admitted that you hadn’t read the specific evidence that I originally provided. This is why it’s more than just disagreeing with your viewpoint. You continually misrepresent mine in nearly every post. And since you have stated that you know what my viewpoint is and have no need to consider any other evidence, your arguments are mostly in the category of “straw man” arguments, since they don’t accurately represent the view you are opposing.
This is in no way meant to be disparaging toward you personally, however. I understand where you’re coming from, because I believed as you do for many years. I was taught the same arguments by people who had anti-Catholic and anti-Trinitarian bias. But when I was exposed to evidence to the contrary I had to admit that while the doctrine of the Trinity may be false it doesn’t necessarily follow that everything any Trinitarian believes or does is false or devilish.
Also, consider this. The current culture is becoming more and more secularized to where children in school are forbidden to use the word “Christmas” and putting a nativity scene in a public place brings about law suits. Meanwhile drunken revelry, unbridled greed, and stories about Santa Claus have all but eclipsed any mention of Jesus. Is this really preferable? Is it really better to eliminate or downplay any reference to the Hope of Mankind just because it isn’t really the date of his birth, or because pagans also had a celebration at the same time? To adopt that stance would put us in the unfortunate position of siding with atheists and skeptics.
As I’ve said before, I don’t expect you to change your viewpoint. But I do expect you to accurately portray mine when you debate it, and the fact is, you haven’t. But frankly I’m tired of rehashing the same points over and over, so I’m in favor of dropping it. It isn’t a doctrinal issue, so let’s move on.
Peace on earth, and on the Internet!
When I read of the Pope saying that God himself became a man
(because of Jesus) I believe there is a sense in which Jesus is God,
and that by such means of the word which God did design, a man
isn’t necessarily wrong in his use of it.
If God calls Jesus “God” (Psalm 45:6), Isn’t OK if men also do, as
David also ate the shewbread?
Mark C.
By definition, Christmas promotes the Incarnation apart from all the pagan coutrements attached to it. I repeat, why don’t you celebrate the birth of Christ some other time of the year? We wouldn’t be debating this moot point if you did. What I refuse to do is even to aknowledge those aspects which define Trinitarianism like the Incarnation. What I am commanded to flee from is anything that even smells of pagan “customs and traditions”.
Do you consider every person, regardless of Christian denomination, as part of “the body of Christ” along with you as long as they “confess with their mouth Jesus is Lord”?
Christmas was desgined and created as a Roman Catholic observance practice of the Incarnation of God in the flesh. Everyone knows this. As well as all the added pagan stuff that comes along with it. I repeat, if you or anyone else [of the sound doctrine] wants to honor and celebrate his birth, why not do it any other time of the season??
I have read your posts Mark and I still disagree. Happy?
Yes I agree, not every Trini is a devil etc. But Christmas is celebrated with pagan accoutrements to observe the Incarnation. You must know this!
I disagree with both scenarios you have painted. The religious and secular components of Christmas. As I said, if you go the “religious” route you end up celebrating with Trinis the Incarnation, if you go the secular “revelry” route you end up breaking God’s commandments.
In a desire to shift this broken record a little — as I read many references of idolatry, I can’t help but think of the verse:
I may not have a dead pine tree in my house (which I don’t), but if I am not putting to death covetousness, them I am committing idolatry. Timothy Keller has a new book out titled, “Counterfeit Gods, The Empty Promises Of Money, Sex, And Power, And The Only Hope That Matters.” Here is something from his introduction:
This is something to consider any time of the year.
Brian,
Thanks for a thought provoking post. This is similar to my argument that idolatry, according to YHWH, seems not to be limited to the physical idol as such [made of wood, stone etc.].
With the coming of Jesus and his spiritualising of the Torah we see how this is taught. Adultery now becomes not only a practical sin but a sin of the mind. Murder is murder of the heart etc.
This is what I have been trying to get Mark C. to understand, and I think he does but he’s simply disagreeing. Orthodox [as well as a few non-orthodox] Christians look forward to Christmas every year. A form of idolatry has taken place now especially with the further cementation and stimulus of commercialism, decorations, etc.
Let me digress, looking forward to something [i.e. secular celebration] is not idolatrous, but what Christmas entails in and of itself is. Even more so when you get the lame excuse by many that they do it for the kids!! Since when is it right for parents to lie to their kids regarding “Father Christmas, Santa, reindeers” etc. Its simply a ridiculous cop out using kids like that.
Anyways, thanx for your input. Much appreciated!
Xavier,
Excellent reasoning, brother. I do not see any straw men in your reasoning. Your not reading Mark’s article, however, becomes a red-herring argument in his latest posts. Reading the article, in my opinion, would not change anything.
Mark, OK, you WANT to celebrate Christmas, don’t you? The thing is – and no modern-day historian can refute it – that, among all the compromises of the time, some of which I mentioned in one of my previous posts, merely accepting that the Christian festival on 25 December was an alternative, is a little naïve. All the other rituals are seen as compromise, but 25 December, celebrated by the very same compromisers is merely an alternative? That’s far-fetched, sorry. You can rant and rave as much as you want to, but this won’t stand in a court of law.
Secondly, whatever you’re celebrating on December 25, it’s not the birth of Christ, sorry. Whatever it is, it’s NOT the birth of Christ – not even close. And here is the salient point of this matter: You don’t want to celebrate it in October in a much more authentic way than it is done today. Whatever reasoning you employ to want to celebrate it on December 25, for the very same reason(s) should you be willing to celebrate it in October – that is, if you reason consistently. Whatever reasons you give for not celebrating it in October should be the very reasons for not celebrating it in December – again if your reasoning is consistent.
You constantly use the rebuttal that much of the critical sources have based their conclusions on Hyslop. Well, many of the sources Xavier and I sighted do not rely on Hyslop. So, your rebuttal amounts to cherry-picking.
You’re jumping around, Mark. Nearly every Christian I know is aware that Christmas traditions are a blend of paganism and Christianity. Secondly, the only area in which you have a case is the possible pure motive for choosing December 25 as the “alternativeâ€. THE REST OF THE FESTIVAL IS PAGAN! Thus will using these other Christianized forms of demonism amount to compromise. You ARE trivializing the matter, and I show it here again.
THAT’S NOT THE POINT, MARK. It is in the WAY we do it, the TIMING as well as the ASSOCIATIONS made with it. The way is pagan. The timing (I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt) is inaccurate. The association is with apostate Christianity, Trinity, Incarnation, greed and secularism. Motive does not correct it, sorry, so stop arguing for motive.
Whatever reasoning you employ, as I said, for Christmas, should have you celebrate it in October for the very same reasons. If not, then, for the same reasons, don’t do it in December.
Maybe you don’t want to change our minds on this matter. But don’t use our Standard (Bible) to argue your point. Christmas gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling. That’s why you want to celebrate it, but leave the Bible out of it. We have been arguing is circles, but you were the one drawing them.
Xavier, good job again.
Your brother,
Jaco
Jaco,
Ditto.
Here’s a couple more articles in answer to Mark’s “while there may be some who play up the Trinity/Incarnation aspect, it is by no means the majority.”
Following is from the Sentinel Online, by Erica Dolson [Sentinel Reporter], December 24, 2009.
Here’s a beauty from the Buffalo Rising, dated today, entitled: “Theological Thursdays: Incarnation” by Rev. Drew.
Is this the same inspired man you base this whole arguement on, looks like he also has the same agenda as all trinitarians in presenting Jesus as the God baby
The Meaning of Immanuel, God with Us
By Dr. Richard P. Bucher
There is no one in history that has been given more names or titles than Jesus Christ. If you’ve read through the Bible carefully then you know what I mean. Throughout the pages of Holy Writ over 100 names and titles are given to Jesus. And whether He is called “Bright morning star, Wonderful Counselor, the Root of Jesse, the Alpha and the Omega, or the Lamb of God”, each of these names and titles is rich with meaning. They all say something significant about who Jesus is.
However, there is no name more significant than “Immanuel”. This name, which Matthew refers to in his Gospel (Matthew 1:23), was first given to Jesus by the prophet Isaiah 700 years before His birth (Isaiah 7:14). And this very special Christmas name, as Matthew tells us, means “God with us.” Jesus Christ is Immanuel, “God with us,” and I’d like to share why this is so meaningful at Christmas time.
I.
The babe born to Mary in a manger, the infant that the shepherds ran to see, the newborn child that the Magi traveled hundreds of miles to worship is Immanuel, God with us. But in what sense is Jesus “God with us?”
Wasn’t God always with the human race? Wasn’t “God with us” before Jesus? Yes. In one sense God, the Creator, has always been “with” His creation. Unlike the false god of the Deists and Theists and of many evolutionists, who believe in a god who started the world and then departed far away, the true God has always been with us. About this He says in Jeremiah 23 “`Am I God who is near,’ declares the LORD, `And not far off? Can a man hide himself in hiding places, so I do not see him?’ declares the LORD. `Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?’ declares the LORD.” (Jer. 23:23-24). The God of the Bible, the true Creator is omnipresent, everywhere at the same time. He fills all of creation with His presence; every mountain and every molecule; and yet He is not a part of that creation. He remains Creator distinct from His creation. And so a God who is everywhere is certainly a God who is with us.
When Paul preached to the pagans of Lystra (in Acts 14) He reminded them that the true God, the Creator, had always been with them, giving them witness of Himself by providing them with rains, fruitful seasons, and giving them food and glad hearts. Thus, God has always been with His creation in the sense that He, who is everywhere, has showered all mankind with blessings — despite their sin.
But with the birth of Jesus Christ in Bethlehem, Immanuel, “God With Us,” takes on a whole new meaning. For in the person of baby Jesus, God is “with us” not merely to bless us. Nor is He with us in the sense that He is going to merely work through Jesus to help us, protect us, and guide us. No-the little Lord Jesus asleep on the hay is “God with us” because He is God.
What sent the shepherds back to the fields rejoicing, what made the wise men fall down in wonder in the shadow of that babe, was the gripping realization that they were in the presence of their Creator made man.
Years later St. John the Evangelist under the inspiration of the Spirit would write the perfect commentary on the Christmas events. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; and all things were made through Him and apart from Him nothing was made which was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-3, 14).
The true message of Christmas is one to stagger the imagination: The Second Person of the Trinity, the only begotten Son of the Father, the eternal Word, our Creator wills to clothe Himself in our nature, and to become man, our brother, one of us. God Himself lies in the manger, completely human, completely Divine.
II.
But allow me to play the devil’s advocate for a moment. So what? So the message of Christmas is that God is with us in the Person of Baby Jesus. What difference does it make? Why do we need this Immanuel? Why do we need “God with us?” It is said that one does not appreciate the cure, unless one first tastes of the sickness. And such is the case with the true meaning of Christmas.
Why does mankind need “God with us?” First, because He is not. Listen to what our Creator says in Isaiah 59: “Behold, the LORD’s hand is not so short that it cannot save; Neither is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear.” These words were spoken originally to the covenant people of Israel, but they apply to all who have sinned against the Creator.
And the Scriptures pronounce in no uncertain terms that every human being stands guilty before God–guilty not only of misdemeanors, but guilty also of untold felonies. In one place it is written, “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8) And in another place, “The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Psalm 14:2-3). And still in another place God says, “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of it all” (James 2:10).
Why does the human race need “God with Us?” Because we have separated ourselves far away from Him by our sin.
Why does the human race need “God with Us?” Because the plain truth is that without “God with us” we human beings are incomplete at best. For no matter what we in our arrogance like to imagine about ourselves, we humans are creatures. We did not will ourselves into existence by our invincible spirit. Nor do we owe our existence now to our superior intellect and will to survive. These explanations are quite flattering and are also quite without any evidence of truth. We human beings are creations: beautiful, complicated, and intricate creations fashioned by an all-powerful Creator who has revealed Himself to us as our God. His name is Yahweh. And He has revealed Himself to us as Three Divine Persons in One Divine Essence: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We human beings were created by this loving Creator in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). This means that we were created for the express purpose of knowing and loving Him. We were meant to have the most intimate relationship imaginable with Him. We were to depend on Him for all things; we were to daily walk in His light, His love, His joy, His power.
But all this man chose to throw away, and did throw away, when He rebelled against the Creator by sinning against Him. And the last six thousand years of man’s history has witnessed the restless creature man trying to find meaning in life apart from the Creator.
St. Augustine’s familiar words hit the mark, “For You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until we find rest in You.” The human race needs God, the Creator, because it is built into the very core of our nature to know Him intimately. Without Him, we are incomplete, empty, unfulfilled, restless, all because we are living life contrary to the purpose for which we were made.
When the creature no longer has fellowship with the Creator, he seeks to find a replacement to make the gnawing emptiness go away. Some call this “man’s drive to succeed”, others “finding myself”, and still others refer to it as “self-actualization.” But these restless strivings are the creature trying to fill the void left by the Absence of the Creator. Some try to make the emptiness go away with romance and relationships, family and friends; Others throw themselves completely into a career hoping that will give their life meaning. Others find themselves almost obsessively buying one thing after the other, desperately hoping to find fulfillment under the sheer weight of the new. Sadly, many turn to the dark side of drugs, alcohol, crime, and other deviant behaviors to drown out the emptiness and lack of meaning in their lives. We need “God with us” because without Him we are incomplete.
Why does the human race need “God with us?” Because the human race is slowly sinking into oblivion. I know that doesn’t square with the signs of hope around the world. But I am speaking from God’s holy perspective.
From God’s perspective, the creation which originally was “very good” is becoming more corrupted all the time. We as a race are becoming so perverse, so jaded, so violent, that we can’t judge properly anymore. But God has seen the awful wickedness of this world and He tells us what will befall it and us: “The earth will be completely laid waste and completely despoiled, for the LORD has spoken this word…The earth is broken asunder, the earth is split through, the earth is shaken violently, the earth reels to and fro like a drunkard, and it totters like a shack, for its transgression is heavy upon it, and it will fall, never to rise again.” (Isaiah 24:3, 19-20). And of all those who are guilty of sin, God says that at the end of time His holy angels “will cast them into the furnace of fire, in that place there will weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:42).
That is why we need “God with us,” Jesus Christ, our Immanuel. Because only He can undo what we have done. Only the One who created us in the first place can restore us again. Only our Creator can break down the wall of sin that separates His creatures from Him. Only He can give their lives the meaning and completeness they were supposed to have. Only “God with us” can rescue us from the oblivion that we are heading toward.
III.
And that is what the eternal Word of God decided to do. For He saw the dire predicament the human race was in. He saw the ugliness, the brutality, and the violence that sin bred in man. He saw the emptiness and the restlessness of creatures in rebellion against their Creator. He saw that death reigned like a cold-hearted tyrant over His creation. Most of all He saw (with tears in His eyes) that His creation which had once been so beautiful, was now marred and vandalized almost beyond repair by corruption and sin; and that everything was heading for everlasting condemnation.
And so God the Son, sent by the Father, sprang into action. He knew that according to the Law He had laid down, that man must die because of their sin. He also was well aware that man could not be restored to His Creator until the Law was kept perfectly and sin was done away with. But such was His love for His creation that He did not want them to die. But to be true to His Law and not be found a liar someone had to die. Someone whose death would cancel the penalty of sin, stop corruption, and make all things new again. So the eternal Word decided to die for His creation. But to do this He must become human. And thus 2000 years ago, He came, “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Galatians 4:4). The Word became flesh and became Jesus Christ.
So great was His love for His fallen creation, for you and for me, that He left His glory to come here. And through His perfect life and death on the cross He broke down the wall of separation that our sin had built and reconciled us to Himself; as it is written “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.” (2 Co. 5:19). Through Jesus Christ, Immanuel, our sins are forgiven and we have fellowship with our Creator again.
Immanuel. In this one name, everything humankind needs and the entire plan of God’s salvation is subsumed. How blessed we are that Jesus Christ became Immanuel, God with us.