If you are interested in the history of when the celebration of Christmas began and how the date was determined, this article from Biblical Archaeological Review is a good one. And if you think the answer is that Christians co-opted the Roman feasts of Saturnalias and/or Sol Invictus, you need to read the article.
December 7, 2009
Thinking to Believe 
December 14, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Greetings! Brother Dulle
Christmas is a heathen holiday and only heathens would celebrate this ungodly festival. As stated by the prophet Jeremiah we (christians) are commanded of God most High not to learn the way of the heathen which is vain. Therefore, all those that celebrate christmas are doing the will of Satan and are going contrary to the will of the Most High God.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth mercy, grace, and wisdom upon all those that desire to follow truth. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 14, 2009 at 4:44 pm
So those who are celebrating the birth of their Savior are doing the will of Satan, then? How exactly is it that celebrating the incarnation fulfill’s Satan’s will?
Jason
LikeLike
December 15, 2009 at 9:33 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
Those whom are celebrating Christmas are not honouring, nor acknowledging the birth of Jesus Christ for God Almighty plainly spoke through the prophet Jeremiah commanding us not to learn the way of the heathen which he affirmed that their customs are vain. Therefore, to celebrate Christmas is to dishonour the birth of Jesus Christ the Son of the living God.
May the God of all grace continue to grant unto you wisdom, grace, and peace to perform his will always. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 15, 2009 at 11:50 am
Marquest,
You did not answer my questions.
You assume that Christmas is pagan. It’s not. It’s Christian! After all, how can celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ be pagan? Do the pagans love Jesus? Do they celebrate his birth? That is ludicrous.
Jason
LikeLike
December 15, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Marquest, I think you need to scripturally define just what “learning the way of the heathen” is. After you’ve done that, please tell us how that definition applies to the Christmas holiday and how we apply that definition consistently as it relates to this topic and other facets of our lives.
Thanks, in advance,
Scalia
LikeLike
December 15, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Jason, I’m certain you’re not saying the name of Christ automatically legitimizes everything we do…
Exodus 32 (Amplified)
3. So all the people took the gold rings from their ears and brought them to Aaron.
4. And he received the gold at their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it a molten calf; and they said, These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt!
5. And when Aaron saw the molten calf, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.
Do the heathen have feasts to Yahweh? No, they celebrate their gods in their feasts. Aaron’s name switching obviously didn’t impress God.
Against this it may be argued Israel was rejecting God in favor of false gods. I agree with that, but Aaron nonetheless attempted to blunt Israel’s offense by associating God’s name with their idols. We know that upon Moses’ return, there were thousands of faithful Israelites who did not “corrupt themselves.” I don’t think you would call them faithful if they followed suit with Aaron and celebrated his “feast to the LORD” in the manner instigated by the ungodly, correct?
I don’t think the BAR article you present is persuasive. I’ll withhold, for now, explaining in detail why. Suffice it for now to say the title implies the article will tell the reader why December 25 is celebrated as Christ’s birthday, but the conclusion therein is the author isn’t certain how that date came about. I think he should have picked a better title. 🙂
Although I think the article isn’t convincing, I do agree that the celebration of Christ’s birth is harmless in itself.
LikeLike
December 15, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Scalia,
No, I’m not saying that. I’m merely saying that a day spent celebrating the incarnation/birth of our Savior cannot be pagan because neither the content nor the intent are pagan.
The problem with the golden calf is that the Israelites were worshipping something that was not God. Nothing comparable can be said about Christmas in general, nor any particular tradition associated with the holiday such as Christmas trees.
Please do elaborate on your reservations about the article.
Jason
LikeLike
December 15, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Jason, if Christmas trees were originally idols and/or symbols of superstition appropriated by Christians to represent something about Christianity and/or Christ, then the golden calf is analogous. I assume you agree faithful Israelites would not appropriate the calf as a symbol of God’s creative power in a Jewish festival of deliverance. After all, they could say their intent isn’t idolatry, it is to worship God (nothing pagan about that).
I’ll have to elaborate on the BAR article later. I’m doing everything on the fly and am very pressed for time.
Take care.
LikeLike
December 16, 2009 at 9:44 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
To all whom endorse and celebrate Christmas
Truly, truly you have erred away for the truth of the living God and are embracing the way of the world and heathenism which means that you are an enemy of the living and true God. As for me I am firmly and uncompromising against Christmas which a bonafide celebration of devils, sinners, and hypocrites whom do not know God Almighty.
I encourage all those whom love the Almighty Lord of the universe not to endorse nor celebrate Christmas.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth wisdom, mercy, and grace upon all those whom desire to hold onto the truth of the kingdom of heaven. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 16, 2009 at 9:47 am
Greetings! To all
Check this out:
May the God of all grace continue to reveal his truth and grant you a desire to hold to the truth all the days of your life. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 17, 2009 at 10:06 am
Marquest, you didn’t answer my questions. Care to try again?
LikeLike
December 18, 2009 at 8:24 am
Greetings! Scalla
I have already shown you from the scriptures that Christmas is a demonic, sinful, and unprofitable holiday which only those whom do not know the one true and living God would celebrate. Therefore, it is my sincerest and purest hope that you all would take heed to what the God of heaven and earth has allowed me to put forth unto you. But if you do not take heed it will not stop me from spreading the truth to all whomever God would allow me to share it concerning the evil of celebrating Christmas
May the God of all grace continue to enlighten and enlarge your heart concerning the truth of his kingdom. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
P.S. By the way I am standing firm against my stance that Christmas is a demonic holiday and I refure to participate in its ungodly celebrations.
LikeLike
December 18, 2009 at 9:02 am
Marquest, I’ve asked you several sincere questions and you refuse to answer them. Repeating yourself over and over gets you nowhere. What you choose to celebrate is up to you, but it is foolish to think you’ll convince anybody your stance is the right one when you won’t bother to answer relevant questions.
You say you’ve already “shown” me Christmas is demonic but all you’ve shown me are empty arguments. Let’s change some words around to illustrate this:
It’s easy to cite all of the evil things the Internet is used for and to say anybody who uses it is “fornicating with the world.” So, if somebody makes that charge, Marquest gives up the Internet, right?
Your arguments are empty because there are many Christians who celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ who do not buy presents nor decorate their homes during the Christmas season. Moreover, arguing they are “spending money they do not have” is pointless if they happen to have plenty of money to buy gifts.
I respectfully ask you once more to answer my questions. There’s no point typing another post repeating your claims, Marquest, because I’ve already read them. If you again refuse to answer my polite questions, consider our conversation closed.
LikeLike
December 18, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Jason, Mcgowan questions the pagan origin of December 25 for several reasons:
a) No calendrical engineering admitted by early Christian writers.
b) Pagan traditions were not borrowed “heavily” when the earliest celebrations occurred.
c) Tertullian’s, et al, astronomical theory.
That’s it. Excepting the paragraphs explaining and/or justifying these objections, he offers nothing else.
An admission I’m trying to pawn off a phony nativity date is to acknowledge I’m lying. One can hardly expect to find evidence of that.
What does “borrowing heavily” mean? It is, at least, an admission borrowing occurred, but not too much. Is borrowing a date to celebrate the birth of one’s savior “heavy”? That depends, but reasonable persons can deny that. Moreover, Christianity, being 200 years removed from its advent, clearly borrowed heavily from pagan concepts to assert its unscriptural doctrine of God. Obviously, they didn’t even slow down when it came to the Godhead. Consequently, this objection is weak.
The astronomical theory is interesting, but ultimately based upon assumption. The wildly varying dates proposed for the nativity demonstrate this was not widely held, nor does it account for the fact that such a theory conveniently upholds the December 25 thesis. If engineering occurred, that could explain the astronomical theory. Standing alone, it’s possible, but by McGowan’s own standard, there is little evidence this was THE reason for said date.
The Catholic Church’s heavily researched article on Christmas contains the following remarks:
LikeLike
December 18, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The last sentence in the previous post is mine, not the Catholic Church’s. We need a preview screen here. 🙂
LikeLike
December 18, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Merry Christmas, Jason! 🙂
Great link… I enjoyed the article.
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Thanks Jay. Merry Christmas to you too!
Jason
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Scalia,
It’s not analogous because the Israelites were worshipping the calf, which is idolatry. They had not evacuated the practice of creating golden animals of its pagan content and invested it with new non-pagan content, but retained the pagan content. They were doing what their pagan neighbors were doing in both practice, intent, and purpose. The same cannot be said of Christians celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25. Even if that date was originally chosen because it was the date of popular pagan festivals that rivaled Christianity (which the fact of the matter is that no one knows for certain because there is no hard-and-fast evidence for when Christians began celebrating Christmas or why December 25 was chosen as the date), that is not why we do so today. Most Christians and non-Christians alike have no idea that the date may have been selected in response to pagan festivals. What matters is not the origin of the date, but what we are doing on that date. And there is nothing that we are doing that is pagan. It is Christian (celebrating Jesus’ birth), or secular (virtually every other element of the holiday) in nature.
What you call the “astronomical theory” I will call the “integral age theory.” You said the IAT is based on assumption. While that is true to an extent, we know this idea was present at the time. Furthermore, it explains why the East celebrated Christ’s birth on January 6th while the West celebrated it on December 25th. Each calculated the date for Christ’s death differently because of their different calendars. The best explanation of why each church celebrated the birth of Christ exactly nine months after the date they believed Jesus to have been crucified on is if both churches were using the IAT. Does that prove it? No, but it makes it more likely than the paganism theory. After all, no one in the early church explained the origin of the December 25th date as a co-option of the pagan festivals, or as reinvesting these festivals with new meaning. But like I said, I don’t think the origin is clear. And more importantly, I don’t think it is relevant to what we are doing today.
Jason
LikeLike
December 19, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Marquest,
Apparently I have “erred away for the truth of the living God” and am “embracing the way of the world and heathenism,” and thus I am “an enemy of the living and true God” since I celebrate Christmas. While I am tolerant of such invectives by atheists who comment on this site, I would expect better from a fellow Oneness Pentecostal.
Jason
LikeLike
December 20, 2009 at 12:34 am
Jason wrote,
That’s not my analogy. I’m talking about faithful Israelites appropriating the calf and imbuing it with a symbolic message of deliverance from Egypt.
But that is precisely what my analogy asserts. Your words strongly imply it would be appropriate to take the golden calf and use it for symbolic purposes so long as idolatrous overtones were “evacuated.”
Let’s replace the Christmas tree with a Buddha statue. I mean, after all, the fella looks very peaceful and isn’t Christ the Prince of Peace? Why shouldn’t a Buddha statue represent the “peace that passeth all understanding” with the coming of Christ into a human heart? Now, instead of trees, millions of Christians will scurry to shops all over the western world purchasing Buddha statues short and tall to commemorate the birth of Christ because they’ve “evacuated” Buddha of its pagan content. Does that work? Well, no, it doesn’t work because millions of Buddhists still use that statue as a symbol of their religious devotion. Moreover, God specifically called the idols themselves (not merely what they represented) abominable. God never commanded Israel to “vacate” the idols of their content. They were to be destroyed and never to be brought into their homes.
Against this, one may argue Paganism no longer exists and that “everybody knows the Christmas tree represents Christ and/or Christianity.” Wrong again. There are perhaps millions of Pagans across the globe who celebrate the winter solstice with Christmas trees. They find it quite amusing their religion is still being celebrated by Christians (see When Santa Was a Shaman, for example). Or, as one man observed,
In fact, you can go right to the source and read all about the Wiccan Yule HERE.
Jason, are you saying every idol has an open door into our homes so long as we properly expunge them of their idolatrous content?
As I’ve made clear, I have no problem with celebrating Christ’s birthday, whether on December 25th or the 4th of July. My initial response to the article you posted was, in part, my observation that its author is not persuasive. He neither demonstrates how December 25 became the celebration of the Nativity, nor does he present a strong argument against the claim the selection of said date was influenced by Pagans.
Yes. I don’t question whether the idea was present. The assumption is when Christ was conceived. All we have are scant assertions it was so. That the resulting birth happened to have coincided with a major Roman festival could be mere coincidence; but without strong evidence Christ was conceived March 25, this “coincidence” becomes very curious and should at least raise an eyebrow. To repeat, we’re talking about people who fell all over themselves injecting pagan philosophy into theology. In that light, the proximity of certain events appears less coincidental.
Insofar as the day is concerned, I agree, albeit for different reasons.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 8:04 am
Greetings! To all
Christmas is specifically prohibited by the sacred scriptures of God most High while the internet, television, cars are not specifically prohibited by the scriptrues of the truth of the living God. Therefore, as I said before it is my hope and sincere desire that you all would denounce the celebration of Christmas as heathen but if you do not it will not stop me from denouncing the celebration of Christmas. (It is unfortunate that those whom profess to teach, practice, and adhere to the apostle’s doctrine would condemn heathenism such as Christmas.)
May the God of all grace continue to illumine the hearts and minds of all those whom desire the truth of the kingdom of heaven. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 8:07 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
As a true follower of Jesus Christ I do not tolerate sin, heathenism and hypocrisy. Therefore, I will not tolerate anyone whom is called a brother celebrating heathenism such as Christmas.
I will continue to pray for you all that God would enlighten your hearts and minds to accept the truth of God’s word.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth mercy, peace, and wisdom upon you all. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Marquest wrote,
Really? Where is the word ‘Christmas’ in the Bible? Where in the Bible are we told, “Thou shalt not celebrate Christmas”? The word specific, in your sentence, means explicit.
Perhaps you’ll again insist Jeremiah 10 does just that, but of course it doesn’t. In order to read the Christmas holiday into that passage, you must scripturally define what “learn the way of the heathen” and “customs of the people” mean. You must then demonstrate scripturally how that applies to the Christmas holiday and how that principle is consistently applied across the board.
I’ve asked you several times to answer my questions and you, incredibly, refuse to do so. If you can merely point to a passage and say, “That means Christmas,” then I can point to the same passage and say, “That means the Internet.” Unless you can textually demonstrate why one is different than the other, claiming it is so makes your argument unsupported. And if you do not have to support your claim (that Jer. 10 prohibits Christmas), nobody else does either. You’re merely making an empty claim.
Goodbye, Marquest. Unless you answer my questions, I will not answer another post of yours under this thread.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I think this is really a Romans 14 issue. Though i’m not all for the Commercializm of Chistmas. Especially the fact that sinners will speak against Christ and blaspheme Gods name throughout all the other times of the year. Yet as soon as “Black Friday” hits, we all come together to “honor” Mary’s little lamb. You can’t deny that the center piece of the holiday itself revolves around getting stuff, not necessarily to honor and recognize the birth and life of Jesus Christ. Thats just personal take on it.
However, I can’t say that a person is in sin if they decide to chose this day to truely honor Christ. Provided that there is nothing in scripture that prohibits honoring the birth of Jesus on December 25th. And to say that it does, when the scriptures is silent on the issue is placing yourself as a judge over your fellow brother. For the scriptures says this:
Romans 14:5-10
**I think its safe to say that we just need to be careful that our motives are in the right place in all that we do, so we don’t become partakers with the world.
my 2 cents, Peace!
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 1:37 pm
truthofgod,
Well said. Your reasoning is close to mine here.
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Greetings! To all
Jeremiah chapter 10 verses 1 through 6 clearly denounces the celebration of Christmas as a custom of the heathen. Consider verses 2 of Jeremiah chapter 10 which identifies one of the customs of the heathen of cutting a tree out of the forest and decking it with silver and gold. The christmas tree is explicitly identified with christmas and according to the prophet Jeremiah christmas is a custom of the heathen. Therefore only heathens, hypocrites, and sinners would celebrate or condone christmas. As I said before you all can do whatever you would like but as for me and my house we will serve the Lord God of all creation by not celebrating christmas and denouncing it as a custom of heathens. So, I will continue to pray for you all that God would grant you grace, mercy, and wisdom to forsake all of the way of the heathen and pursue the way of God as cited in the sacred scriptures.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth grace, mercy, and peace upon you all. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
P.S. Romans chapter 14 has nothing to do with the celebration of christmas which is a heathen holiday.
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 4:59 pm
With all due respect. Jeremiah 10 has nothing to do with Christmas. How do i know? Because during the time of the prophet, the Messiah wasn’t yet born. Therefore they weren’t celebrating what we call Christmas. Rather the passage is speaking specifically about idol worship. Now brother Marquest; I love brother Gino, I believe he teaches a great amount of truth and is one of the best preachers in America, but he may be alittle off on this one. This is what the passage says:
Jeremiah 10:1-6
based on the context of the passage, we know for certain that its speaking about false gods. For why would we expect a decorated tree to speake, walk, or do evil? Its obvious that they carved the tree into an image of a God.
The reason why i offer Romans 14 is because, once again, the Bible does not explicitly denounce the celebration of the birth of the Messiah. Yet we do go by the principle of scripture by which Paul says:
Romans 14:21
Peace be to you.
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 5:42 pm
truthofgod,
Again, you give a good answer. Since Marques refuses to answer my questions, I won’t respond to him again under this thread. It’s just a waste of time.
That said, let’s look at the tree prohibition. If Jeremiah is denouncing the pre-Christian practice of tree veneration which evolved into Christmas trees, that still says nothing about celebrating the birth of Christ. At best, it merely prohibits Christmas trees, not our giving thanks for our Lord’s birth.
Marquest ignored my observation that many Christians celebrate Jesus’ birth without decorating their homes. That empties his argument of persuasive content. Moreover, it ignores Jason’s point that the heathen did not celebrate Christ’s birth for the very good reason Christ wasn’t even born! Even today, the “heathen” do not give thanks for Jesus’ birth. As you note, they worship at the altar of materialism.
LikeLike
December 22, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Exactly Scalia, and i will reinerate. I don’t celebrate the holiday. As cited in my previous post, i chose to not partake in the commercialism and the gift buying. If the holiday is about Christ then why can’t we crack open our Bibles and have devotional time to share the goodness of our Lord? If the holiday is about the lie of Santa Clause bringing gifts down the chimney, then how do we associate a fat, old, white-bearded, man with Jesus? It makes no sense. But to say that people are going to hell for celebrating Christmas is really off. You can’t judge a person’s salvation in an area which the Bible is silent. You can only go by the motives of your heart and the principle of the scriptures.
Peace!
LikeLike
December 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
Greetings! To all
Everything that the Honourable minister and Holy Apostle Gino Jennings teaches is the truth and nothing but the truth. Only devils, sinners, and hypocrites would say otherwise. Therefore, as I said before you can do whatever you would like but as for me and my house I am going to denounce Christmas as condemned by sacred scripture.
May the God of all grace have mercy upon all those whom do not know the truth and refuse to follow the truth. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 23, 2009 at 11:12 am
Greetings! To all
Let me reiterate. If a person celebrates Christmas then they are participating the customs of heathens and are not walking in the light of God’s grace, power, and love which means they will not see him in peace. Therefore, those whom celebrates christmas shall end up in hell for eternity.
It does not matter how eloquent, sincere, and vast one’s words are in support of christmas it still does not justify an individul whom supposed to be christian to celebrate christmas. Therefore, I do pray that all those whom frequent this forum would give heed unto the Holy Ghost and not celebrate christmas before you end up in the fires of hell for eternity.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth grace, wisdom, and power upon your soul to urge you to accept the truth. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 23, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Scalia,
The problem with what the Israelites did is that they made an idol, claimed that this idol was the one who delivered them from Egypt, and then worshipped it. That is not at all what people are doing with any element of the Christmas holiday.
Would it have been ok to make the calf if they did not think it was a god and worship it? Yes. It would be no different than me having a metal statue of a calf in my house. Why is it ok for me but not for the Israelites? Because they thought of such things as gods and worshipped them. I (we) don’t. There’s nothing moral or immoral about making statues of animals. It’s the intent that makes it either right or wrong. Didn’t Paul say an idol is nothing? (1 Cor 8:4) In that same context he went on to say how not every man recognizes this fact, and thus those individuals cannot eat the meat that has been sacrificed to them without feeling as though they are participating in idol worship. But Paul knew better. He knew the idols were just trees shaped into objects and covered with gold, and that the meat sacrificed to them was just meat. It was not tainted. But for those who could not break the association between the meat and the idol, Paul advised them not to eat it. What made it right or wrong was one’s understanding of the idol.
In the same vein, no Christians are using Christmas trees the way pagans would use them, or think of December 25 as a pagan holiday. They think of these things in an entirely different manner that has no connection to paganism.
Jason
LikeLike
December 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Let me say a word about Jeremiah 10.
Jer 10:2-4 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.’”
The Lord is not speaking of trees per se, but idols that are carved from trees; not of decorating trees, but of adorning the idol. Notice that it speaks of the tree being “worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.” A craftsman is needed to carve the idol from out of the tree. That this is speaking of idols is evident from the context. Verse five specifically identifies these as “idols.” Verses 8-9 read: “They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction of idols is but wood! Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. They are the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the goldsmith; their clothing is violet and purple; they are all the work of skilled men.” And verses 14-15 read: “Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them. They are worthless, a work of delusion; at the time of their punishment they shall perish.”
I think it goes without saying that Christians are not carving idols from their Christmas trees, nor are they treating the tree as an object of worship.
Jason
LikeLike
December 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm
I don’t know how he can’t see this Jason. Amazing!
LikeLike
December 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Jason wrote,
Deuteronomy 7
25. The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the Lord thy God.
26. Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
No, Jason, it would not be permissible. Notice, they were disallowed to even take the silver and gold from idols, let alone the whole idol. The reason? It would be a snare. No matter what kind of technical tap dance you perform, bringing an idol into your home will cause somebody to fall, and that’s why you should utterly detest it.
That is not to imply every person would fall into idolatry. Israel’s history clearly shows there was always a faithful remnant. That notwithstanding, the nation fell because it would not heed God’s commandments.
We’re not talking about paintings and fish fountains in your front yard, Jason. We’re talking about idols loved and worshiped by thousands if not millions of people. That’s where Buddha comes in. I take from your words you would not object to a family in your church setting up a Buddha statue in place of a Christmas tree in their living room, right?
That’s not all he said, Jason.
I Corinthians 8
10. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Paul actually taught against eating such meat for the same reason God prohibited Israel from idols — somebody would fall! Scalia and Jason Dulle would SIN AGAINST CHRIST if we exercised our liberty to the detriment of ANY brother in Christ. Prohibition did not merely extend to a weak brother, but also to a strong one.
Remember, Catholic churches are flooded with idols and to this day they insist they are not breaking the Second Commandment! One must read their convoluted justifications to appreciate the extent to which a group will reach to show their INTENT both justifies image veneration and upholds the Second Commandment.
Paul was strictly opposed to associating the Gospel with any false teaching:
Acts 16
16. And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:
17. The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
18. And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Paul, in essence, is affirming that even though he knows there is only one God, Who is infinitely more powerful than any other spirit, he will not permit that spirit to compromise the message of Christ — even when that spirit speaks the truth!
Paul taught that a man being circumcised out of deference to the Mosaic Law was actually severing his relationship with Christ (Galatians 5:3-4). Yet Paul had Timothy circumcised to further the Gospel. He was so concerned about the offense of his actions, he had Timothy undergo a painful procedure to avoid an occasion of stumbling for somebody. Legalistic justifications mattered little to Paul when it came to the Gospel. His position really was, “I don’t care if it’s technically right to do, you shouldn’t do it anyway if it causes somebody to fall.”
Notice his elaboration:
I Corinthians 10
19. What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
23. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
24. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth.
Notice that technical correctness can still provoke God jealousy! Even though we know an idol is nothing and meat is just meat, we should never participate in feasts that honor other gods. Would you drink tea out of a whiskey bottle? Why not? There’s nothing technically wrong with drinking tea out of a whiskey bottle, but why would I even think about doing it? Somebody could easily misread what I was doing and get the wrong message. Moreover, when we repeatedly do these things, we may be surprised we fall into what we said we would always avoid.
Jason, I’ve known and known of many ministers who have fallen into sin because they exercised their “liberty” without realizing Paul’s was not preaching a message of license, but of love for our weak brethren.
Am I saying a Christmas tree will make Jason Dulle an adulterer? ABSOLUTELY NOT. What I am saying is the history of Christianity since the early Apostolic age is replete with compromise and worldly accommodation. Has America grown more spiritual or more wicked? Have American and/or western churches grown more spiritual or more worldly? Compromise never happens overnight. It’s a step-by-step process — with Christians justifying every step away from holiness. Bringing a well-known idol presently worshiped by multitudes is a rather blatant example of such.
LikeLike
December 24, 2009 at 1:06 am
Jason wrote,
I’ve already stated I see no harm in celebrating Christ’s birth, regardless the day chosen, but truthofgod has raised some important points. If it really is about Christ, then we will worship Him, read and exhort one another from His word, and promote His unmixed and untainted message to the world. When we bring in Pagan relics and set them up the same way Pagans do, then we ARE using them the same way Pagans do, our protestations notwithstanding.
Let’s go back to Exodus 32. Aaron didn’t worship the calf, but he changed the names around to blunt its offense. While perhaps most of Israel committed idolatry, let’s say some faithful Israelites got on Aaron’s bandwagon of going with the flow and carved their own calves in the exact likeness of what Aaron carved and set them up in their homes — without worshiping them, mind you — and simply used them as “symbols” of God’s deliverance from Egypt. Would God have slapped them on the backs and said, “Way to go! That’s turning the tables on them!”?? Of course not. Their actions would merely have encouraged, not discouraged, Israel in their idolatry. That’s akin to you using Buddha to represent Christ while trying to convert your Buddhist neighbors to Christianity.
If you really want to celebrate Christ’s birth and truly honor him, then why do you need Pagan symbols? We’re not only talking about relics of the past, we’re talking about modern Paganism.
Well, decorate and adorn, in this context, mean the same thing, so decorating is going on whether it’s a tree or a “carved” idol.
Of course you realize trees were worshiped too, correct?
The upshot of your analysis is Jeremiah 10 doesn’t forbid tree worship; it only forbids carved idols made from trees. Pardon the pun, but I think this completely misses the forest for the trees.
A craftsman can cut a tree’s branches in various designs while retaining the “treeness” of the object. Designs can be carved into the trunk by removing the lower branches and retaining the upper ones. Here you are reading into the text what it does not say. It doesn’t say all the bark was stripped, all the branches were cut off with the remaining wood carved in the likeness of a local deity.
Nobody argues idolatry isn’t being condemned here. I know you might be primarily addressing Marquest’s arguments, but I doubt even he denies idolatry is the subject here.
Trees were worshiped in the ancient pre-Christian world. Many sources document tree veneration evolved into the present-day Christmas tree. If that is true, then so-called Christians knew they were embracing a Pagan idol (which is condemned throughout the Bible) and justified it by switching names. Amusingly, it appears the Catholic Church attempted to expunge these Pagan relics but found it hit a brick wall:
Pagans continue to celebrate Yule with the trappings Christians (actually Pagan converts unwilling to give up their former religion) now use to “honor” Christ.
If this is a “technically” correct practice, then it is certainly not expedient. Conservative Christians insist they want to “put Christ back into Christmas.” Great! Let’s start by throwing Paganism out.
LikeLike
December 24, 2009 at 1:32 am
Ugh! Regarding Post 35. My comment regarding the “tap dance you perform” is not directed to Jason personally. The “you” is generic.
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 8:14 am
We have celebrated the holiday and have done so my entire life. Recently my wife and I have questioned why do we celebrate this day. We have to dodge the lies that people ask our kids about Mr. Claus and what he is bringing them. My kids have been threaten about telling the truth to other kids and we have been threatened that our kids better not ruin Christmas for their kids. One family that teaches their kids about Mr. Claus is an apostolic family.
Not to mention all the things of the flesh that are incited during this time – greed, envy, coveting, jealousy. It isn’t about giving but receiving. People exploit the idea it is more blessed to give than receive but if you don’t give back then what? Yes, people do give to charities that buy a little gift for poor children. But the kicker is this, our God will not share his glory with another. If it is truly about Jesus our Lord then we should cause all idols to bow low to the King of kings and the Lord of lords. Yet, here we are putting idols in our homes… Mr. Claus is giving each and every child a gift and he knows when you are sleeping and awake. So we have one idol that sees all and knows all and one idol we bring in as a special decoration.
Attendance at church drops because of the season. Sure, family time… I understand, there isn’t 360 other days to get with family and show love and give gifts. If it about Christ worshiping Him should be paramount!
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 5:16 pm
cs, you’re 100% correct!
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Scalia,
I did not say it was ok for the Israelites. I said it wasn’t because they only thought of such things as idols. That’s why the instruction in Dt 7 was necessary. We don’t think of animals made out of metal as gods, however. That’s why it’s fine for us to have similar things in our homes without sin.
Apart from the fact that Buddha is not considered a god to Buddhists, and the Buddha statue is not considered an idol, no, I would not approve of Christians using Buddha statues in place of a Christmas tree in their homes. But my reasons are more practical than anything else. Simply put, the Buddha statue has no symbolic significance for Christianity whereas the Christmas tree does, so it wouldn’t make any sense to replace the tree with the statue. Furthermore, the Buddha statue has religious significance for a contemporary religion that competes against Christianity. That’s not to say I think it would be wrong for any Christian to own a Buddha statue. I think one can do so as long as they are using it for decoration purposes only (they attach no religious significance to it). With that said, in some contexts (such as in Asia or in areas populated by Asians such as the San Francisco bay area) I would advise against even this for the reason Paul so clearly articulated in 1 Cor 8, 10 and Romans 14.
As for 1 Cor, there are two issues Paul is dealing with! First is the issue of eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. That is what I was talking about, and Paul did not prohibit that. He only said that if a weak brother points out to you (the strong brother) that the meat you are eating has been sacrificed to an idol, you should not eat it for his sake. But if that weak brother was not to point this out, it would be fine to eat it (1 Cor 10:25-33). What you are referring to is Paul’s comments about eating at the temple of the idol. Paul was opposed to that.
What is the “well-known idol presently worshipped by multitudes” that you speak of?
Jason
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Scalia,
The bottom line is that most people have no idea of the pagan origins of some of the practices associated with the Christmas holiday, and no Christian celebrating Christmas engages any of these practices for non-Christian reasons. They either think of them as having Christian significance, or merely non-religious cultural significance. Why do I put lights on my Christmas tree? Is it because I think the lights symbolize Jesus as the light of the world? No. It’s because it’s a cultural practice I inherited, and I think they are neat. Do I put up a Christmas tree because it reminds me of Christ’s death on a tree? No. I put it up because, once again, I like the way they look. It is a tradition I inherited, and one I like. It has no religious significance for me. It only has cultural significance. The same is true of mistletoe, yule logs, Santa Clause, and the like. They are fun cultural elements that have become part of the Christmas holiday. And I see nothing wrong with that. As long as people do not have pagan intent behind them (and they don’t), then it is not pagan. What these things might have meant to people long ago, or what they might mean to some people groups today that you could only discover through research, is irrelevant. If the brush was invented by pagans as part of a pagan ritual, and was still used by some pagans today for the same purpose, would you stop using a brush to upkeep your hair? I doubt it. And you shouldn’t. Few things are sinful in themselves. It is the intent and understanding that makes something sinful. So long as we do not understand something to be pagan, and do not intend it that way, it is not pagan to do it. Something is not forever tainted just because it was once associated with pagans.
When it comes to Jeremiah 10, I think it is you who are missing the forest for the trees when you wish to make an issue about removing bark or certain branches. Are you honestly doubting that Jeremiah 10 is talking about images carved from trees rather than raw trees decorated with gold? Since when do people nail down trees (v.4)? I don’t dispute your claim that some people worshipped trees, but we know from Scripture the kinds of idols used by Israel’s neighbors, and they were images of men and animals carved from trees. So when we read about them cutting down trees and a craftsman using a cutting tool on it, it almost certainly is referring to carving an idol out of the tree, not just relocating the tree and removing some branches and then covering what remains with silver and gold.
As for the source of the Christmas tree, just like the Dec 25th date and so many other Christmas “issues,” no one is certain of its origin. From what I read, however, the best explanation for its late origin is the Christian play called the Paradise Play, which featured the story of Adam and Eve. It’s only prop was the Paradise tree from which Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Eventually the plays were outlawed, but the people loved the play and had become so accustomed to it that they put up their own Paradise trees on December 24th, the feast day of Adam and Eve in the Eastern Church. Whether this is the true origin no one can be certain, but the same is true of the pagan theories. Just because pagans used trees doesn’t mean Christians borrowed the idea of a Christmas tree from them.
Jason
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Jason wrote,
Yes, you did…
Your previous remarks make it clear that so long as an Israelite did not think the golden calf was an idol, having it would be permissible. God gave them no such allowance because, as aforesaid, somebody would have been snared therein.
That depends. Theravada Buddhists see Buddha as being a man only and not a god. Mahayana Buddhists, however, view Buddha as a historical manifestation of a universal absolute, or Buddha essence. So, yes, the image of Buddha is an idol to Mahayana Buddhists.
Nor did the “Christmas” tree when it was brought over by Pagan converts. Given this standard, we can borrow Buddha and the passing of three or four generations should thoroughly Christianize it. Somebody has to get a new “Christian” tradition started, right? Since you don’t think Peter prescribed trees in December, I don’t know what to make of your remark.
And a Yule (Christmas) tree has religious significance for a multitude of Pagans.
Exclamation point? I already affirmed that.
As a technical matter, yes; but again, I’ve already stated that. Moreover, I think you’re being overly technical here. Many people are not bold enough to walk up to me and say, “Hey! What are you doing?” They’ll simply see Scalia wolfing down a Filet-O-Dagon and be thus encouraged to do the same. I think we should do a little more than take the wait-till-we’re-asked approach.
Well, read the following quotations and you’ll be able to figure it out. 🙂
This is Pagan past and Pagan present, Jason.
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Scalia,
I only have time right now to comment on your first remark. I would have thought it rather obvious that my “yes” was a hypothetical yes, because as you quoted me, I go on to say, “Why is it ok for me BUT NOT FOR THE ISRAELITES? Because they thought of such things as gods and worshipped them.” In so saying I make it clear that it was not ok for the Israelites to do so, and give the reason: because for them, they could not separate the notion of deity from such statues. It would only have been ok for the Israelites to make statues of animals like a calf if they did not associate them with deities. Unlike you and I, however, they could not do so given their religio-cultural situation.
Jason
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Jason wrote,
And? There are sins of ignorance, Jason; and there are faux pas of expediency people unwittingly commit. If I am doing something wrong, my intent is only relevant as a mitigating factor; it has no bearing on the wrongness of the act.
If “intent” is everything, then Catholic idolatry is sanctified.
That depends. I would probably use a brush or a comb that didn’t look like a replica of an idol. One can manufacture all kinds of brushes. It doesn’t have to be a replica of an idol
You keep trivializing Paganism as something only “some” people are involved in. Whatever your opinion of Paganism, there are far more than “some” people involved in it.
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 7:56 pm
The last italicized portion of Post 44 should read as follows:
Nor has that been my argument.
If you’re going to “refute” a position scripturally, you need scriptural backing. You asserted that passage says what it does not. Don’t give us a “C’mon! You really think…?” argument. That proves nothing.
This is well documented, so no need to comment further.
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Jason wrote,
No, not all of them did. Aaron made the calf but he did not think it was God nor did he worship it. There were thousands of Israelites who did not worship it either.
You, thus, add another proviso to your argument. Intent doesn’t carry the day, “religio-cultural” situations must be considered, too. Perhaps you alluded to this with your San Francisco comment, but that’s not the same context. So, in the “wrong” religio-cultural context, you would ignore a person’s appeal to “intent” and simply ban h/er from having an image in the likeness of a local deity?
LikeLike
December 28, 2009 at 10:54 pm
My earlier “yes, you did” remark is in perfect accord with what you wrote. That’s why I included your next statement that it would have been wrong for Israelites to have one. Your qualification is that “they thought of such things as gods and worshiped them.” The point I have repeatedly made is for those who DID NOT think it was a god, under your argument, having it would be permissible. For aforesaid reasons, that is not true.
LikeLike
December 30, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Greetings! To all
Truth is the truth regardless of the opinions, ideas, and philosophies of men. Therefore, as long as God most High grant me breath I am going to hold to the truth which is that christmas is a heathen and ungodly holiday that only devils, sinners, and hypocrites would celebrate.
May the God of all grace continue to shew forth mercy, longsuffering, and wisdom upon you all to lead you to the truth of the kingdom of heaven. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
January 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Scalia,
I’m not saying good intentions can make something that is sinful not sinful. Having good intentions for killing my neighbor cannot make the act right because the act in and of itself is wrong. But the act of making an animal out of metal and/or putting such a statue in one’s home has no moral quality in and of itself. It is an amoral issue. What makes it right or wrong is one’s intention (the way they think about the statue). If one thinks of it as a deity, then it is wrong. If one thinks of it as a decoration, then it is not wrong. As Paul said about the meat that had been sacrificed to idols, one is no better if he eats it or doesn’t eat it. The act itself is amoral. But if one thinks it is evil, then to him it is evil; i.e. it would be wrong for him to eat it because he would be violating his conscience. I think the same is true of celebrating Christmas. There is nothing intrinsically moral or immoral about the day of the celebration, or the various elements associated with it (burning logs, decorating trees, etc.). It would only be wrong to celebrate Christmas if one believes that such practices are pagan, and participating in them is an act of rebellion against God. That may apply to some folks, but for the vast majority of Christians, that simply isn’t the case.
You said it has not been your argument that something is forever tainted just because it was once associated with paganism. So what is your argument, then? I know you make a point that paganism is still alive and well, and that there are still people today who worship trees, but that does nothing to mitigate the fact that such practices are foreign to most people, and there is no connection between Christmas and paganism in their minds. If some tribes in the Congo worship toilets as gods, should I be prohibited from using a toilet? No. The beliefs of remote people groups that I have no contact with, and beliefs that I and most people are not aware of, cannot taint our practices. Indeed, our use of toilets would have no connection whatsoever to their beliefs about toilets.
You claim I “asserted that passage says what it does not,” and my “c’mon, you really think” response proves nothing. That was not the essence of my response. I appealed to our knowledge of Israel’s neighbor’s idolatrous practices. To my knowledge, none of them worshipped trees. But we do read in Scripture, however, that they made idols of men and animals from trees. You are appealing to an unlikely interpretation given the cultural and religious milieu in which Israel lived.
As for the source of the Christmas tree, you say it is well documented. By whom, and when? From what I have read, we are largely in the dark about the origins of the practice: both the when and the why. If you know something I don’t, please share your historical sources (by which I mean persons in the 15th or 16th century who wrote about the practice and its origins, not persons who are writing in modern times speculating about its origin).
Jason
LikeLike
January 5, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Scalia,
I agree that there is no reason to think Aaron believed the calf was a god. He made it because he felt pressured to do so by the people. And the text does seem to indicate that there were Israelites who did not join in with the idolatry.
You asked me, “So, in the ‘wrong’ religio-cultural context, you would ignore a person’s appeal to ‘intent’ and simply ban h/er from having an image in the likeness of a local deity?” Yes, I think I would. One’s historical, cultural, and religious context is paramount. It’s one thing for me to have a trinket of the Buddha in my home if I live in Iowa; it’s another thing if I live in Taiwan. Given the historical, cultural, and religious context of Taiwan, my having a Buddha in my home would likely be understood by others to mean I am a follower of the Buddha, and thus would be a bad witness. It could even embolden some Buddhist converts to Christianity to return to their Buddhist ways. And thus I would avoid having a Buddha, or anything connected to the Buddhist religion, in my home. Indeed, I probably wouldn’t practice yoga in some of those same countries either because of its association with Eastern religion (even though the type of yoga practiced here in the U.S. is devoid of religious elements and used strictly for exercise). If I practiced it, it would have to be a practice I kept private (Rom 14).
Jason
LikeLike
January 5, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Scalia,
Your “yes you did” remark is not in perfect accord with what I wrote. It perfectly quotes a word I used, but ignored the context in which I used it (even though you quoted the context). Again, I think it was obvious that the “yes” I provided was a hypothetical yes since I went on specifically to say it was wrong for the Israelites, and noted that it could only be right if one did not associate the calf with a deity (although in retrospect I wish I had spelled this out so we could have avoided this). That is something that we can do in our historical, cultural, and religious context, but not something the Israelites could do given their historical, cultural, and religious context. But you say, not all Israelites thought that way. Granted, but most of them did. The point I am making is that it is not wrong for us in our historical, cultural, and religious context to make the very same calf because our context is very different from theirs. So long as we are not associating the calf with any deity, it is not wrong. And we (collective we) do not make that association. The same is true of Christmas.
I’m worn out by this debate, so I’ll let you have the last word (unless you say something preposterous, then I’ll have to respond again). 🙂
Jason
LikeLike
January 5, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Jason wrote,
You wear out too easily! 😉 I wasn’t even going to comment until I saw Marquest’s post. I figured I’d take a stab at both of you but quickly found out Marquest just wanted to ignore my questions and repeat himself.
No, it wasn’t “obvious” to me and after our last go around I certainly wasn’t going to divine your intentions again. 🙂 You wrote it would not be okay only because they thought of such a thing as a god. That IS in perfect accord with what you wrote. Your follow-up clarifications are fine, but that’s not what you originally wrote.
Nobody except possibly Marquest has argued that.
And nobody said they weren’t foreign in their minds. Paul called somebody a “whited wall” but regretted that when he was informed he was speaking to the high priest. I’ve met many Christians who immediately resolved to abstain from trees, etc., when they discovered their origin and current meaning among Pagans. They certainly don’t think a tree is a god, but they don’t want to retain a practice whose religious significance is to honor another god. They correctly believe the celebration of Christmas doesn’t require those trappings and are content to give thanks for Christ’s birth in worship and fellowship.
This is a repetition of your “brush” argument. Keep using your toilet, Jason (please!). If the toilet has horns in honor of the Bull-Commode god, I’d probably leave off the horns. 🙂
You later ask me not to supply citations from contemporary sources. So, every author of the encyclopedia sources I could quote are lying? Practically every encyclopedia entry on the subject will tell of the Pagan origin of many Christmas traditions.
Tertullian, in his De Idololatria wrote,
Why would Tertullian warn Christians about celebrating Pagan festivals and decorations if they weren’t doing it? Here is clear evidence Christians were decorating their homes in the pattern of their Pagan neighbors.
Also, check out The Solstice Evergreen by Sheryl Ann Karas. She amply demonstrates evergreens have been a symbol of rebirth from ancient times. Bringing greenery into one’s home was common during the winter solstice.
Actually, your position is closer to mine here. And I appreciate your sensitivity to cultural climate. However, we live in an increasingly multi-cultural society; and there are Pagans everywhere. I close with something I’ve already mentioned: If this is all about our giving thanks for Christ’s birth, then we don’t need Pagan relics to do so — whether or not we are aware of their origin.
LikeLike
January 6, 2010 at 12:46 am
Jason wrote,
The Jewish Encyclopedia answers this:
The entire piece can be read HERE. Moreover, the book Sex and Sex Worship, by O. A. Wall, contains the following quotation:
LikeLike
January 6, 2010 at 9:10 am
Greetings! To all
Again I say unto you that Christmas is a celebration of devils and only devils would participate in it. Only the truth saints of the Most High God would not participate in the celebration of Christmas.
Therefore, I sincerely hope and pray that the Lord Most High Almighty opens your heart to accept the truth and walk therein. But as for me and my house I am serving the Lord God of all grace by not celebrating Christmas, Easter, Fourth of July and other other man made holiday that contradicts the holy scripture.
May the God of al grace continue to shew forth mercy, grace, and wisdom upon you alls souls. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
January 18, 2010 at 8:59 am
Scalia,
I said I would let you have the last word, and I am. I only want to explain why I said I am worn out by this debate. The reason is three-fold. First, it was not the topic of this post. Second, it is not a topic I find all that interesting. I debate it only because it is so relevant, particularly at this time of the year. Third, I have been debating others on this topic outside the confines of this blog as well.
Jason
LikeLike
March 15, 2013 at 3:34 pm
I always found this whole debate a bit of a waste of time. I personally don’t care what pagan festival may have preceded Christmas or on which specific date Jesus was actually born, December 25th is the day we choose to celebrate Jesus’ birth, and that is the origin of our modern Christmas celebration. Nothing changes these facts or the significance of the celebration. Of course, it’s still fun to read up on the history of it nonetheless.
LikeLike
February 19, 2019 at 10:35 pm
@David P
How is what you personally care about relevant to what we’ve been discussing? Tastes are subjective and are fine for you, but they’re really not helpful in a discussion.
You say:
December 25th is the day we choose [sic] to celebrate Jesus’ birth…
Why that day instead of September 8th? If it was chosen in order to “Christianize” a pagan holiday (so that pagan converts could continue celebrating their idolatrous holidays), then that’s a little more than an arbitrary pick. As we see from Exodus, name-switching doesn’t sanctify idolatry.
Moreover, if you’ve read the discussion, most of us agree there is nothing objectionable in celebrating Christ’s birthday on December 25th (or any other day). Much of the discussion revolves around why that day was chosen and whether Christians should associate Christ’s birth with contemporary pagan customs.
LikeLike