Why Christmas Is Celebrated at Night

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 12-22-15 | Msge, Charles Pope

[BlueDragon]

I said you seem to belong to a Church that has Nestorian leanings.

You said that also, but that's not true either -- and you posted that as being my own alleged motive.

I just want to be clear about that without imputing motive and labeling you anything. Christ was Divine Person who via the Incarnation by the Holy Spirit was Born of the Virgin Mary and became man, thus he took on fully a Human Nature was like all humanity in all things, save Sin.

It appears to me that you have here taken up an argument that another should have made, and revealed a particular terminology he was going to try to use to somehow prove that --- other than the manner of Christ's conception within womb of the virgin, Mary, the remaining details of that pregnancy and eventually birth of a human being (which Christ fully was in bodily form -- it simply cannot be denied) cannot be assumed was very much just like other human pregnancy and resulting birth.

Now that we've come this far, and by your own hands I'm not being somehow bashed while games are played with the subject matter (at my own expense, and at the expense of any who are not narrowly Roman Catholic--- if that element of criticism & consideration can be continually nurtured, and brought along with all the rest -- which seems to me to be the point of the exercise every bit as much an issue itself otherwise being discussed & used to toy with people here, as platform of discussion to bash those "protestants" with, as much as possible!) you could address the issue further if you like, beginning as it was framed from reply #101.

Right or wrong from either side of that discussion, whatever one's own opinions would be in regards to the assertion made in #61, post #101 would be a logical juncture from which to proceed.

BUT-- you certainly do not have to provide explanation and justifiable basis for the assertion that I objected to, and if you do not, I will not pretend & then assert you do not because you can not (which was the sort of treatment I repeatedly received from your religious cohort).

Thanks for revealing what it was he was driving at though. He could have gone whenever he was going with it, instead of making the discussion to perpetually 'about' me --- but that's his long pattern & practice towards a great number of people here on this forum -- I'm not the only victim.

Simply pointing towards descriptive wording used to describe Christ as not [strangely capitalized] 'Human Person' still does not make it as far as everyone needing to consider (other than the manner of conception within Mary) the details of Mary's pregnancy with the chosen Messiah of Israel, then the resultant physical birth of Jesus (who was and is the Messiah) being any different than normal human births, generally speaking, for he was still fully human in regards to human form. And so was Mary too, although the later theological inventions in regards to her own alleged sinlessness I imagine could come into play in attempt to leverage ideas from there to save the specious assertion that was made in reply #61.

[CTrent1564]

Yes, I did see the connection of where he was going. And if you claim your Church does not have Nestorian leanings, then ok. But lets be clear on what is meant by Nestorianism, as least as I understand it. I think my statement on the that issue is entirely consistent with the Christology defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431. As for Christ and me capitalizing Human Nature, perhaps I should have not done so as you alluded to, but I am in no way positing Christ was a Human Person. He is Divine Person with a Divine nature and Human Nature. My point on capitalizing both Divine and Human was to stress that Christ was True God and True Man.

However, I recognize that in writing it is probably better to write in Capitals True God and true man, upper and lower case, respective, as the Tome of Pope Leo the Great does

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac1.htm

[BlueDragon]

My point on capitalizing both Divine and Human was to stress that Christ was True God and True Man.

I had already said as much on this thread, wording it as him having been fully man and fully God. Which doing so rendered your cohorts badgering to have been superflous before he even began it, and your own explanations tending toward realm of rather needless hair-splitting.

But as to the assertion I had objected to in comment #61, I'll ask you now;
Jesus was human in every way in his physical, bodily form, was he not?

What objection to that can there be? Must we open up that can of worms referred to as "sin nature" (the fallen, sinful nature)?

You had just written that he had a (capitalized, even!) Human Nature.

[CTrent1564]

Yes, he had an fully Human nature. On that we can agree. It is just as a Catholic, there is one qualification that I hold to as the Church holds to it, he did not have any sin at all. We don’t need to get into that nor will I speculate as to what you hold regarding his Human nature. If you want to disclose it, so be it.

But again, nothing in the Word changed at the Incarnation, he took on Human Flesh and thus in His Human nature, had all the weaknesses that we humans have, he hungered, thirsted felt pain and rejection, he suffered. It is he was the “Perfect Man” and thus had no Sin, for as you I am sure know, the Letter to Hebrews speaks to this point of Theology (Hebrews 4:15).

[BlueDragon]

It is just as a Catholic, there is one qualification that I hold to as the Church holds to it, he did not have any sin at all.

I cannot recall encountering any Evangelical, Baptist, Pentecostal, Lutheran, old school Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, or whatever kind of 'congregationalist' who object to the above "qualification" in regards to Jesus being without sin.

If there are any --- maybe there are some Unitarian Universalist, or some confused Episcopalian (those latter used to get so much so correct-- what happened to those guys? oh, wait -- they ordained wymen as "preachers" and provided artificial platform of 'authority' to them, for one thing).

Just because little Johnny can hardly drive and has a habit of veering off into the ditches, doesn't mean I have to follow his tire tracks through the mud, just to see where he ended up. He didn't get all that far from the main road, anyways. It's plain enough where the badly out-of-step little Johnnys all too frequently end up, uhm, parked. ;^')

But still no effort to defend the assertion that led to this aspect of the conversation in the first place, huh? No mention of it at all, one way or another. That's what I frequently find maddening about this forum.

From the one fellow there seemed to be effort to distance himself from the assertion, making things be all upon myself (and 'about' myself) and here we are many, many comments later and the issue in regards to the assertion has yet to be examined.

A whole bunch of considerations ancillary to that have been touched upon though, so I suppose not all the effort has been for naught.

[CTrent1564]

Fair enough. So you and I are actually for the most part in agreement. We agree that when speaking of Christ, he is a Divine Person (2nd Person of the Holy Trinity) and had a Divine and human nature. Mary thus gave birth to a Divine Person who had a Divine Nature from all eternity that was joined to His human nature at the Incarnation. So no you to not hold to Nestorian theology.

I think, and this is now me speculating, you have perhaps some issues with the Council of Ephesus stressing the term Theotokos when defining the Doctrine of Christ stated above. I think, if I am reading you correctly, that insisting on this term to clarify the Christological question, may have caused issues that then needed to be defined about Mary. The article below, while from wikepedia does a good job explain Theotokos, Jaraslov Pelikan, who I have in past cited frequently, defines as the One who gives birth to the one who is God. That is a handful. Typically, I have heard it rendered as the God Bearer although others translate it as the one who gives birth to God. In Latin, the term Deipara is also used which is close to the Greek (Our Sunday Visitors Catholic Encylopedia, 1986 p. 961) and is rendered Birth Giver of God. Mater Dei, another Latin term is also used which is where Mother of God comes from which is not inconsistent with Luke 1:26 Mother of my Lord.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theotokos

So as you can tell, there are indeed different renderings of Theotokos. I think the reason it was stressed to that the Union of the Natures at the Incarnation was maintained from the Annunciation, That way, doctrines of adoptionism, Arianism Semi-Arianism etc could be clearly refuted.

At the same time it is indeed an honorific title applied to Mary which sort of gets me to I think the point that you might take issue with, honoring Mary with titles could potentially cause another theological issue while you were trying to resolve one, etc.

On this point, I think you know Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are going to part ways with most of protestant confessions. Nevertheless, in the future, perhaps you can explain to some of the protestants here who do lean towards a Nestorian Christology and explain it in ways that they may see it. For some, given that I as a Catholic try to explain it, I am immediately charged with labels as being chained by Popery or papistry etc.

And as I said before, we Catholics here all identify ourselves as such. If a Protestant were to identify themselves as say Lutheran, then I have some framework from which I can establish common ground given I know they hold to Creeds, etc. But I have also been down the road before as well in requesting Protestants to identity their tradition. I do remember you in the past doing so which is why I dialogue with you. Those that don’t disclose which confession they belong to, I don’t waste to much time with.

[Syncro]

I explained it in all honesty, and meant it in good faith and in good will.

I believe your heart is in the right place Mrs. Don-o but I do not see changing my statement to the Catholic agenda instead of the Christian Biblical statement that I posted as "good faith and good will."

Changing "not Catholic" basically to "Catholic" could deceive posters.

Jesus is the Head of the body of Christ, and every single born again Christian sincere follower of Jesus is a member.

The Catholic Church is NOT the "body of Christ" to the exclusion of all other Christians.

I understand that you completely stand by the way you posted "my" quote and understand why.

I wish you no ill will, just posting for clarity.

You did not address the points I brought up in my posts to you which is why I have been compelled to do so...again, for clarity.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"OK," I thought to myself, "Am I that far into senile dementia? Did I really write something I didn't want to write, and didn't mean to write, and launch this whole blinkety-blankin' controversy with dear Syncro?"

I went all the way back to mine at #94 to see if I had said anything about the Catholic Church. And I had not. So this whole series of volleys was directed at something I did NOT say.

Excuse me, but this is so aggravating.

What I wrote, clearly noting that the words in brackets were my own words was "This is all accomplished by the Holy Spirit, [dwelling within us, and within the Body of Christ, the] Church."

I did think we both believed that the Holy Spirit dwells within us as Christian persons, and within the Body of Christ, the Church.

We do agree on that, don't we? I didn't say anything about "Catholic." I did not use that word, did not covertly "mean" to use that word.

You wrote:

"Jesus is the Head of the body of Christ, and every single born again Christian sincere follower of Jesus is a member.

The Catholic Church is NOT the "body of Christ" to the exclusion of all other Christians."

I agree with every word of that, exactly as stated..

Are we on same page of music now?

[Yosemitest]

Why don't you simply BELIEVE what our Heavenly Father told you THROUGH Jesus and written IN THE BIBLE ?

[CTrent1564]

I do believe it, I believe Christ founded a Church, which the Bible is part of, not independent of it, not superior to it, not less than it, but part of the one and same Church. Christ speaks through his Church, not through your interpretation of what the Bible says.

Again what you believe is your business. However, all of those early Church Theologians decided that the Church should in its worship/Liturgy commemorate the Incarnation of the Lord for the theological reasons, not to co-opt paganism’s holidays. It is the same thing for Easter, which there is solid evidence that was celebrated in Rome on a Sunday as early as 114AD (See Saint Ireneaus of Lyons Letter to Pope Victor circa 180AD). Pope Victor in his time wanted to excommunicate some of the Eastern Church because they celebrated pascha/Easter according to 14 Nisan regardless of when it fell, thus it could be celebrated any day of the week. THe Church of Rome was not as concerned with finding the exact date, but making sure 1) It was on a Sunday since CHrist rose from the Dead on Sunday, 2) making sure it fell in close proximity to Passover and 3) making sure it fell in the Spring since in the West it was thought Christ died on 25 March. Eventually, the Church of Rome’s view won the day at Nicea in 325AD.

Saint Ireneaus who was born likely in Smryna in the East was a pupil of Saint Polycarp who was a disciple of the Apostle John (all reputable Scholars of all Christian Traditions that due serious scholarship agree). In the Protestant Confessions, Phillip Schaff the Reformed Patristic scholar and the ANglican scholars (Lightfoot) from the 19th century concur with the Catholic scholarship on this question. So when Ireneaus writes Pope Victor, he has a first hand account of when Polycarp visited Pope Sextus around 150 AD and while that disagree about when Easter should be celebrated, they did not brake communion. Ireneaus goes on and reminds Pope Victor that all his predecessors who ruled the Church of Rome, while not permitting anyone under them from celebrating Easter on any other day besides Sunday, they still did not break communion with those in the Eastern Church that were 14 Nissaners.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

Thus just like Christmas, the early Church debated the Liturgical celebration of Pascah/Easter from a Christological theological framework, not to compete with earth worship or worship of fertility pagan gods, etc.

[Yosemitest]

"Once Easter was fixed, Christmas was fixed to link it to the Paschal mystery,
which is where 25 March, which was also cited by Saint Clement of Alexandria
(and for the record, January 6 and 10th were also dates of Christ Birth mentioned in that text)
as the date of his death, which also Tertullian cites.
Julius Africanus, reasoned since the Jews viewed 25 March as the date of creation, and Passover, etc, and Christ died that date
(a widely held belief in the 2nd and 3rd century),
he claims the advent of Christ occurred on this date,
by this he meant the Incarnation."

Ya'll REALLY DO go the long way around the barn, to TRY to KEEP PAGAN INFESTED CUSTOMS under the name our Christian traditions, don't you ?

You can start at Jesus' Crucifixion and Death w hich we all know was at the very setting of the sun, starting the night of PASSOVER.
Then you can read Daniel 9:24-27 and understand what out Heavenly Father through Jesus and then through Gabriel told us about Jesus.

"...he shall confirm the covenant with many
for one week:
and in the midst of the week
he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ..."

Put plainly:

Daniel's "seventy weeks prophecy" has a final "week"
divided into two,
the first half
of which surely corresponds to the 3 1/2-year ministry of Jesus at his first coming.
The second half-"week" readily aligns with the other 3 1/2-year periods in Daniel and Revelation,
which demonstrably end with the return of Christ
(cp Dan 7:21-27; Rev 11:2,3,15-18).
Since a literal 3 1/2 years was used in the first half of the "week",
it would be consistent to deduce a literal 3 1/2 years in the second half.

Now take Jesus' death at PASSOVER and subtract THREE AND ONE HALF YEARS.
Then remember how old Jesus was when he started his ministry (Luke 3:15-23 at his Baptism),
and subtract another 30 years,

for a total of 33 AND ONE-HALF YEARS .

Now what month are you in ?

HINT ... ( It ain't December !)

Jesus Christ IS OUR Passover !

Speaking of "Ishtar," another PAGAN Holiday the Catholics adopted, and repurposed for their FALSE religion, has nothing to do with PASSOVER.

You really should read more of the BIBLE.
You'd know about 3 days and 3 nights own the grave, not 2 nights and 1 day.

Here is what the vaunted Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about Easter:

"The English term, according to the Ven. Bede (De temporum ratione, I, v) relates to Eostre, a Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring…that the Apostolic fathers [the apostles of Christ] do not mention it and that we first hear of it principally through the controversy of the Quartodecimans are purely accidental" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, p. 224).

A "Teutonic goddess of the rising light of day and spring"? Well, yes, but much, much more than merely a pagan goddess of the rising light of day and spring. She was, in the demented minds of superstitious pagans, a goddess of sex and fertility; of fecundity and procreativity. Her symbols were, most importantly, the egg, and, secondarily, the rabbit. Of course, rabbits don't lay eggs, but many a child does not learn this until a later age.

Bunnies are cuddly to little children. So are tiny chickens, and gaily-colored eggs. Concerning Easter eggs, the Catholic Encyclopedia somewhat reluctantly admits,

"The custom may have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring [and therefore directly related to SUN-worship], gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early spring. . .the Easter rabbit lays the eggs, for which reason they are hidden in a nest or in the garden. The rabbit is a pagan symbol and has always been an emblem of fertility. . . In France, handball playing was one of the Easter amusements, found also in Germany. . . The ball may represent the sun, which is believed to take three leaps in rising on Easter morning" (ibid. p. 227).

Dozens of "quaint" customs derived from ancient superstitions and myths. Most revolved around cupidity, and had suggestive fertility rites obvious in their execution. The same source admits,

"On Easter Monday the women had a right to strike their husbands. On Tuesday the men struck their wives, as in December the servants scolded their masters . . . In the northern parts of England the men parade the streets on Easter Sunday and claim the privilege of lifting every woman three times from the ground, receiving in payment a kiss or a silver sixpence. In Neumark (Germany) on Easter day the men servants whip the maidservants with switches; on Monday the maids whip the men. They secure their release with Easter eggs. These customs are probably of pre-Christian origin." (Ibid. p. 227).

These, and many other rituals, were pagan fertility rites, derived from worship of the sun. For example, the same source says,

"The Easter Fire is lit on the top of mountains (Easter Mountain, Osterberg) and must be kindled from new fire, drawn from wood by friction; this is a custom of pagan origin in vogue all over Europe, signifying the victory of spring over winter…the church adopted the observance into the Easter ceremonies, referring it to the fiery column in the desert and to the resurrection of Christ" (Ibid. p. 227, emphasis mine).

Note that admission carefully, for it lies at the very heart of the matter.

Now, notice the origin of the name "Easter." Hislop says,

"It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people of Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar" (The Two Babylons, Hislop, p. 103).

The "h" was silent, just as in the Assyrian "Astarte," where the last two letters were also silent, giving the identical pronunciation used today, "Easter."
But beyond your PAGAN Celebrations that OFFEND our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus, have you ever read the Bible about Christ's crucifixion, and

[Yosemitest]

Side note:( my phone and internet connection was taken down by lightening and has been out for 4 days and just came back this afternoon).

If you believe what Jesus said, you could NOT say ...

"the Bible is part of,
not independent of it,
not superior to it,
not less than it, but part of ..."

So ... THAT IS WHY ... YOU ALLOW SATAN to POLLUTE ... YOUR religion !

[CTrent1564]

Yosemitest:

Jesus did not say anything regarding Bible Alone. That is your reading into the text what you want it to say.

You reduce the faith and elevate the Bible above the Church. The Church is what Christ founded, the scriptures were written within the Church. The Church came before the NT, not the other way around.

And you continue with Satan polluting this, polluting that. You have yet to respond to anything regarding the question at hand, which is how the early Church decided when to celebrate the birth of Christ. YOu continue with the same mantra, over and over again. I think you and I have come to an end of our discussion as it seems to me you aren’t interested in discussion. Your posting in all caps only further supports my view.

[Yosemitest]

"You reduce the faith and elevate the Bible above the Church."

WHAT did YOUR Heavenly Father THROUGH Jesus Christ SAY ?

Read it for yourself, IF you can bear the truth.

WHAT HOLY DAYS did YOUR Heavenly Father THROUGH Jesus Christ COMMAND YOU TO KEEP ?

Do you have ANY REAL KNOWLEDGE of the Bible and WHAT GOD ACTUALLY COMMANDED ?

Do you ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND the word "ALWAYS" and the words "FOR EVER" ?

SO ... in closing ... CHOOSE YOUR Church WISELY !
Or ELSE ... !

[John O]

“Herbert W. Armstrong”. Founder of the cult known as the Worldwide Church of God. Anything involving him is instantly suspect.

I know people who came out of that “church” and it took them years to recover.

[Yosemitest]

The name of the researcher, does NOT change the TRUTH of the sources !

[Syncro]

What I wrote, clearly noting that the words in brackets were my own words was "This is all accomplished by the Holy Spirit, [dwelling within us, and within the Body of Christ, the] Church."

Posters here expect to see an actual true complete quote when replies are " put " between quote marks.

If you wish to quote me, do so without removing the MAIN point and putting your opinions in between the quote marks.

When the word Church with the uppercase C is posted on FR by a Catholic it usually means the Catholic Church.

My quote stands as I originally posted it:

"Jesus is the Word, and he lives in His followers, and we live in Him...This is all accomplished by the Holy Spirit, not the Catholic Church".

That is my quote withOUT changing the meaning.

Adding your words within quote marks denoting a post of mine, with or without brackets or explaination changes the meaning to any posters that under stand the first rule of quotes.

This post is not necessarily for you, but for the thread so the "accidental" but actual deception is understood.

This whole thing is soooo last year...

[Mrs. Don-o]

"This whole thing is soooo last year..."

:o)

Happy New Year, Syncro!

Sincerely, tagline...