Posted on 12/21/2002 11:21:49 AM PST by DouglasKC
Christmas Before Christ?
The Surprising Story
Most people know the Bible doesn't mention - much less sanctify - Christmas. Does it make any difference as long as it's intended to honor God and bring families together?
by Jerold Aust
|
S |
"I don't think you should tell kids that there is a Santa Claus," he said. "That's the first lie you tell your children." Instead, "tell kids that Santa's a character we made up to celebrate a time of the season." Otherwise "when kids get to be 5 ... they realize their parents have been lying to them their whole life."
Earlier in the year the Arts & Entertainment cable television channel aired a program about Christmas titled Christmas Unwrapped: The History of Christmas. The promo for this program read:
"People all over the world celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25th. But why is the Savior's nativity marked by gift- giving, and was He really born on that day? And just where did the Christmas tree come from?
"Take an enchanting journey through the history of the world's favorite holiday to learn the origins of some of the Western world's most enduring traditions. Trace the emergence of Christmas from pagan festivals like the Roman Saturnalia, which celebrated the winter solstice."
These two programs addressed the fact that Santa Claus is fictitious and that Christmas and its trappings emanate from pagan Roman festivals. By no means are these the only sources of information about the background of Santa Claus and Christmas.
Is there more to these ancient traditions and practices than meets the eye? And, more important, does it make any difference whether we continue them?
Celebration of the sun god
It may sound odd that any religious celebration with Christ's name attached to it could predate Christianity. Yet the holiday we know as Christmas long predates Jesus Christ. Elements of the celebration can be traced to ancient Egypt, Babylon and Rome. This fact doesn't cast aspersions on Jesus; it does, however, call into question the understanding and wisdom of those who, over the millennia, have insisted on perpetuating an ancient pagan festival that has devolved through much of the world as Christmas.
Members of the early Church would have been astonished to think that the customs and practices we associate with Christmas would be incorporated into a celebration of Christ's birth. Not until several centuries had passed would Christ's name be attached to this popular Roman holiday.
As Alexander Hislop explains in his book The Two Babylons: "It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that the day of our Lord's birth cannot be determined, and that within the Christian Church no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance" (1959, pp. 92-93).
As for how Dec. 25 became the date for Christmas day, virtually any book on the history of Christmas will explain that this day was celebrated in the Roman Empire as the birthday of the sun god. Explaining how Dec. 25 came to be selected as the supposed birthday of Jesus, the book 4000 Years of Christmas says: "For that day was sacred, not only to the pagan Romans but to a religion from Persia which, in those days, was one of Christianity's strongest rivals. This Persian religion was Mithraism, whose followers worshiped the sun, and celebrated its return to strength on that day" (Earl and Alice Count, 1997, p. 37).
Not only was Dec. 25 honored as the birthday of the sun, but a festival had long been observed among the heathen to celebrate the growing amount of daylight after the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year. The precursor of Christmas was in fact an idolatrous midwinter festival characterized by excess and debauchery that predated Christianity by many centuries.
Pre-Christian practices incorporated
This ancient festival went by different names in various cultures. In Rome it was called the Saturnalia, in honor of Saturn, the Roman god of agriculture. The observance was adopted by early Roman church leaders and given the name of Christ ("Christ mass," or Christmas) to conciliate the heathen and swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity.
The tendency on the part of third-century Catholic leadership was to meet paganism halfway-a practice made clear in a bitter lament by the Carthaginian philosopher Tertullian.
In 230 he wrote of the inconsistency of professing Christians. He contrasted their lax and political practices with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own beliefs: "By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals [the biblical festivals spelled out in Leviticus 23], once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians" (Hislop, p. 93).
Failing to make much headway in converting the pagans, the religious leaders of the Roman church began compromising by dressing the heathen customs in Christian-looking garb. But, rather than converting them to the church's beliefs, the church became largely converted to non-Christian customs in its own religious practices.
Although at first the early Catholic Church censured this celebration, "the festival was far too strongly entrenched in popular favor to be abolished, and the Church finally granted the necessary recognition, believing that if Christmas could not be suppressed, it should be preserved in honor of the Christian God. Once given a Christian basis the festival became fully established in Europe with many of its pagan elements undisturbed" (Man, Myth & Magic: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Mythology, Religion, and the Unknown, Richard Cavendish, editor, 1983, Vol. 2, p. 480, "Christmas").
Celebration wins out over Scripture
Some resisted such spiritually poisonous compromises. "Upright men strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts, the apostasy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan festival is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still celebrated, prove its origin" (Hislop, p. 93).
The aforementioned Tertullian, for one, disassociated himself from the Roman church in an attempt to draw closer to the teachings of the Bible.
He wasn't alone in his disagreement with such trends. "As late as 245 Origen, in his eighth homily on Leviticus, repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ as if he were a king Pharaoh" (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 6, p. 293, "Christmas").
Christmas was not made a Roman holiday until 534 (ibid.). It took 300 years for the new name and symbols of Christmas to replace the old names and meaning of the midwinter festival, a pagan celebration that reaches back so many centuries.
No biblical support for Santa Claus
How did Santa Claus enter the picture? Why is this mythical figure so closely aligned with the Christmas holiday? Here, too, many books are available to shed light on the origins of this popular character.
"Santa Claus" is an American corruption of the Dutch form "San Nicolaas," a figure brought to America by the early Dutch colonists (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. 19, p. 649, "Nicholas, St."). This name, in turn, stems from St. Nicholas, bishop of the city of Myra in southern Asia Minor, a Catholic saint honored by the Greeks and the Latins on Dec. 6.
He was bishop of Myra in the time of the Roman emperor Diocletian, was persecuted, tortured for the Catholic faith and kept in prison until the more tolerant reign of Constantine (ibid.). Various stories claim a link from Christmas to St. Nicholas, all of them having to do with gift-giving on the eve of St. Nicholas, subsequently transferred to Christmas Day (ibid.).
How, we might ask, did a bishop from the sunny Mediterranean coast of Turkey come to be associated with a red-suited man who lives at the north pole and rides in a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer?
Knowing what we have already learned about the ancient pre-Christian origins of Christmas, we shouldn't be surprised to learn that Santa Claus, too, is nothing but a figure recycled from ancient pagan beliefs.
The trappings associated with Santa Claus-his fur-trimmed wardrobe, sleigh and reindeer-reveal his origin from the cold climates of the far North. Some sources trace him to the ancient Northern European gods Woden and Thor, from which the days of the week Wednesday (Woden's day) and Thursday (Thor's day) get their designations (Earl and Alice Count, pp. 56-64). Others trace him even farther back in time to the Roman god Saturn and the Greek god Silenus (William Walsh, The Story of Santa Klaus, pp. 70-71).
Was Jesus born in December?
Most Bible scholars who have written on the subject of Jesus' birth conclude that, based on evidence in the Bible itself, there is no possible way Christ could have been born anywhere near Dec. 25.
Again we turn to Alexander Hislop: "There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of [Jesus'] birth, or the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in the open fields ... The climate of Palestine ... from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October" (Hislop, p. 91, emphasis in original).
He goes on to explain that the autumn rains beginning in September or October in Judea would mean that the events surrounding Christ's birth recorded in the Scriptures could not have taken place later than mid-October, so Jesus' birth likely took place earlier in the fall (Hislop, p. 92).
Further evidence supporting Jesus' birth in the autumn is that the Romans were intelligent enough not to set the time for taxation and travel in the dead of winter, but during more-favorable conditions. Since Joseph's lineage was from Bethlehem, and since he had to travel from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem, and since his expectant wife Mary traveled with him, it would have been nearly impossible for Joseph and Mary to make the trip in the winter. As recorded by Luke, Mary delivered Jesus in Bethlehem during the time of census and taxation-which no rational official would have scheduled for December.
What difference does it make?
The Bible gives us no reason-and certainly no instruction-to support the myths and fables of Christmas and Santa Claus. They are tied to the ways of this world and contrary to the ways of Christ and His holy truth. "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles," God tells us (Jeremiah 10:2).
Professing Christians should examine the background of the Christmas holiday symbols and stop telling their children that Santa Claus and his elves, reindeer and Christmas gift-giving are connected with Jesus Christ. Emphatically they are not! God hates lying. "These six things the LORD hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren" (Proverbs 6:16-19).
|
Recommended Reading Does it matter to God which days and customs we celebrate to honor Him? Why do so many of our holidays have strange customs sanctioned nowhere in the Bible? Many people are shocked to discover the origins of most popular holidays. They're also surprised to find that the feast days God commands in the Bible-the same days kept by Jesus Christ and the apostles-are almost universally ignored. Be sure to request your free copies of the booklets Holidays or Holy Days: Does It Matter Which Days We Keep? and God's Holy Day Plan: The Promise of Hope for All Mankind. |
Christ reveals that Satan the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). Parents should tell their children the truth about God and this world's contrary and confusing ways. If we don't, we only perpetuate the notion that it is acceptable for parents to lie to their children.
Can a professing Christian promote a pagan holiday and its symbols as something that God or Christ has approved? Let's see what God thinks about people using customs and practices rooted in false religion to worship Him and His Son. We find His views clearly expressed in both the Old and New Testament.
God specifically commands His people not to do what early church leaders did when they incorporated idolatrous practices and relabeled them Christian. Before they entered the Promised Land, God gave the Israelites a stern warning: "Take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them [the inhabitants of the land],... and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.'
"You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods ... Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it" (Deuteronomy 12:30-32, emphasis added throughout).
Many centuries later the apostle Paul traveled to and raised up churches in many gentile cities. To the members of the Church of God in Corinth, a city steeped in idolatry, Paul wrote: "... What fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God ... Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you.' ... Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God"
(2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 7:1).
Instead of allowing members to rename and celebrate customs associated with false gods, Paul's instructions were clear: They were to have nothing to do with them. He similarly told Athenians who were steeped in idolatry, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30).
God alone has the right to decide the special days on which we should worship Him. Jesus Christ plainly tells us that "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). We cannot honor God in truth with false practices adopted from the worship of nonexistent gods.
Jesus said: "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men" (Mark 7:6-7). With God no substitutes are acceptable. It makes no difference that Christians mean well when they observe Christmas. God is not amused or pleased.
The knowledge of how to honor Almighty God, who made us, preserves us and gives us eternal life, has been made available to you. Will you honor God or follow the traditions of mankind?
True but gifts, singing and fellowship are also used in both the Old Testament and New Testament. I don't recall mention of them being allowed only at certain times.
My question to you is this: Do you believe that it is permisssible to practice that which was banned due to idolotry?
Idolotry is wrong period. However, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please explain.
Really? Thanks for explaining that to me.
As you have stated, I do understand what you are saying and agree with it to a great extent. On the doctrine of the Biblical instruction, I agree. But, you forget that I am an atheist.
As far as Christian doctrine is concerned, I think you make the mistake of using tactics of condemnation and not those of conviction. Have you the ability to understand the difference?
And please friend, the bold, italic and capitilization combinations are just too hard to read. Do use them, but more sparingly, as to make the text easier to read.
I will also refer you to Christ's message to the seven churches. Read them carefully. Christ also defined His Church in the Gospels - - 'Wherever two or more of you are gathered for my namesake, there shall I be in your midst...' This is the Church as defined by your God.
Be careful of the condemnation tactic, it lends no credibility to your argument and does not edify others' understanding. It only makes you appear as one who lusts after ecclesiastical authority.
Ah ha! So that storm was YOUR doing eh? All I know Dallas, is faith is an amazing thing. We do things in accordance with the faith we have been given and I think in proportion to it. Giving in the Spirit of the Lord is always a good work because it is an exercise of faith...even little things like socks (and I shouldn't even call that faith little), as long as it is given freely in the Spirit of Truth and not some other spirit or for the sake of any ceremony or tradition that only seems to be true. Otherwise the tradition begins to rule the heart and mind to give and not the Lord himself.
I well understand the difference between condemnation and conviction. The devil condemns falsely but conviction is what happens when the Word hits a sinful heart that should repent. Jesus Christ said:
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Under your definition above, you would probably say he used "tactics of condemnation." He did not and neither do we. We just quote Him. The Word itself, has the authority of G~d Himself. When the Word of G~d finds no place in them, people often try to "shoot the messenger." They crucified Jesus Christ and said He was of the devil. He promised that they would do the same to His followers. His true followers are those who do what He says. When people refuse to abide by His Word, He gives them over to blindness. It may well be that the Holy Spirit is calling to you personally (because you see some things). Consider it. :) One false doctrine in the church is that people cannot be cast away so that think that gives them license to sin. Because they embrace that false doctrine it is as though they have a bag over their head blinding and deafening to the truth. It is a demonic stronghold in their minds.
>Christ also defined His Church in the Gospels - - 'Wherever two or more of you are gathered for my namesake, there shall I be in your midst...' This is the Church as defined by your God.
Your one verse definition of who is a Christian doesn't cut it because it ignores that fact that many who say they are Christians are hypocrites. So one hypocrite and one true Christian standing side by side does not define who is His true church. A broad definition of who is a Christian would be anyone inside a church, yet similarly you can be in a garage and not be a car. Jesus said that one would be taken and one left behind. A hypocrite is defined in Greek as "a dissembler, one who disguises or conceals himself behind a false appearance." The L~rd can tell the difference between true and false and judges each man according to his works. If a man does evil, he is an evildoer. If a man is unfaithful to his wife, he is an adulterer. If a man worship idols, he is an idolator.
Jesus fed the thousands the loaves and fishes who were there for the blessings, yet all but a few left him when He said you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. They didn't understand what He meant about entering into His life and walking in holiness so they departed in unbelief.
I would say "not much". They stopped doing animals sacrifices as the new testament clearly states that was Christs role. The Levitical priesthood was done away with because Christ is now the high priest. Those are the two biggies. They certainly didn't stop celebrating the scriptural holy days and turn to pagan days. That didn't happen for another couple of hundred years or so.
Just as an aside on this, if anyone is brave enough...look up the Satanic Bible on the internet and examine which holiday is the highest holy day in Satanism.
Why not go ahead and tell us. I'd be interested inknowing but have too many other things to do at the moment.
Number one was the individuals birthday. It shows a honor of self, one of the tenants of Satanism. That's almost a direct quote from the Satanic bible.
I've got news for you: Christianizing Christmas was dedicated to destroying Christianity...
I am certain that I never stated that the absence of Christmas in the bible made celebrating it a sin. That's an absurd propostion on it's face. Thanksgiving is an acceptable holiday because it was created for the express purpose of giving thanks to God.
The roots of Christmas are undoubtedly and clearly pagan and bible forbids God's people from participating in pagan ceremonies. It's a form of idol worship. Putting other god's before God. Pagan gods in this case.
God being a just and loving God sanctified and blessed certain days, holy days, that were to be used to honor, commemerate, learn and fellowship with him. These are the days that he gave to us in the bible. The religious holidays of today are entirely man created, not God created.
Sounds a bit like the party I attended earlier tonight.
lol..yup been to plenty of those myself in my life. Things don't change much.
Thanks for the kind words. The first step in overcoming is to be able to clearly see the situation...you're much further along than some other folks... :-)
The power to condemn is not yours. While I do agrre with you on many levels, this is where I draw the line with you sir.
-
The devil condemns falsely...
What is the "Devil" ???
I will refer you to someone who had a greater knowledge of the Bible and it's language than any human in history - - Thomas Hobbes:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Also consider this, from Hobbes' Leviathan, in 1668:
Part IV. Of the Kingdom of DarknessChap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness
[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.
[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine,...
I have read the King James Bible extensively. You are attempting to interpret it based on no knowledge of the original language. Pay attention to this:
"Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality..."
I challenge you to find a Biblical scholar who would dispute this. They cannot honestly say otherwise. I say you make great errors in some of your interpretations, although I do agree with your general perspectives on the issue here.
A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim. This is the primary definition from the American Heritage Dictionary. The etymology of words are often different than their definitions.
Are you a pagan Egyptian, pagan Greek, pagan Roman, pagan Celt, etc., etc., or an atheist like myself???
Be careful, this is a subject I have a lot of knowledge of...
Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)
The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.
The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.
There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...
Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:
Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.
[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Also know that if you claim to be a "witch," I'm ready for that one too:
Controversy over the origin of the word witch is valid when one considers the etymology of the term in other languages: venifica (Latin), hexe (German), streghe (Italian), etc. Only in it's English form has the word assumed a benign origin: wicca, purportedly meaning "wise."Any debate must center on recent claims that advance a positive and socially acceptable meaning for a term that has in all ages and most languages meant "poisoner," "frightener," "enchanter," "spell-caster," or "evil woman."
Anthropologists have shown that even in primitive societies, notably the Azande, the definition of witch carries malevolent connotations. Therefore, are we to assume that the only "good" witches in the world were English witches? This, however, becomes difficult to accept when one considers the term wizard, which stems from the Middle English wysard = wise, versus the Old English wican = to bend, from whence witch is supposedly derived. All in all, it seems to be an unsuccessful attempt to legitimize a word that probably originated by onomatopoeia - the formation of a word that sounds like what it is intended to mean!
Please be clear in your words.
Clearly stated and accurate.
-
The religious holidays of today are entirely man created, not God created.
Your approach to this debate is much more instructive. I tend to chide 2sheep a little, because he takes such a condemnation approach to the issues. Yours is more from a perspective of conviction.
-
The religious holidays of today are entirely man created, not God created.
Likewise, "morals" are entirely man created. Morality is a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If you are following Christian doctrine that is based on the Scripture, you are supposed to be led by the conviction of the Holy Ghost, not by the man made idols of "morality."
"Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good."
They needn't have fretted over it. Hope my reply isn't too confusing for you.
They were never forbidden by God. Other practices were. Some of those practices are common in Christmas celebrations.
REPEATING A DIRECT QUESTION: My question to you is this: Do you believe that it is permisssible to practice that which was banned due to idolotry?
Idolotry is wrong period. However, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Please explain.
Go read Jeramiah 10.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.