ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
philosophizer
New member
Hilston,
What about Christmas is ritualistic? Or ceremonial? It's not like there are any prescribed things that must be done in order to celebrate Christmas (well, maybe for catholics). I don't have to go out and slaughter a "clean animal" for Christmas dinner and do something funky with its blood. I don't have to offer grain or light candles. I don't have to put up a "Christmas tree." I don't have to buy presents. There are no rituals. It's not ceremonial. It just a day of observance and celebration. There is no set pattern of necessity to it. And no one has to do it if they don't want to.
If I do absolutely nothing this Saturday, am I sinning because I have kept the Sabbath? If I don't like pork, am I sinning by not eating it?
What about Christmas is ritualistic? Or ceremonial? It's not like there are any prescribed things that must be done in order to celebrate Christmas (well, maybe for catholics). I don't have to go out and slaughter a "clean animal" for Christmas dinner and do something funky with its blood. I don't have to offer grain or light candles. I don't have to put up a "Christmas tree." I don't have to buy presents. There are no rituals. It's not ceremonial. It just a day of observance and celebration. There is no set pattern of necessity to it. And no one has to do it if they don't want to.
If I do absolutely nothing this Saturday, am I sinning because I have kept the Sabbath? If I don't like pork, am I sinning by not eating it?
Yorzhik, read it again. You have it exactly backward. The weaker brothers in the context of Romans were the Jews, those who necessarily observed special days and special food restrictions (sadly, much as modern evangelicals do, albeit NOT of necessity -- unwarrantedly and unbiblically) .
See verse 2: "For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs."
It is the one who must, of dispensational necessity, observe religious ritual, ceremony and symbolism who is the weaker brother. This is why Paul so harshly condemns such things for the Body of Christ. Truly the lesser is blessed of the greater. The Body of Christ is greater than the lesser angelic realm, whom we bless and govern. The angelic realm is greater than the lesser Jewish kingdom, whom they bless and govern.
Paul wrote this at a time when believers from the Kingdom dispensation co-existed with believers of the Body dispensation. He therefore urged them to be kind and respectful to those sensibilities. Since there are no longer any elect Jews of the Kingdom alive today, Romans 14 cannot apply. This is also true of the entire 8th chapter of 1Corinthians.
In verse 3, Paul says, "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him." He is making the point that the Jewish believer MUST have food restrictions and the Body believer is not to look down upon him for this.
In verse 5, Paul says, "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Paul is not saying, "It's up to you, as long as you're fully convinced." No, he is saying that the weaker brother (the one who esteems one day above another) must make his hope and calling sure, that is, be sure he is NOT in the Body of Christ and that his hope is with elect Israel or the Nations.
Paul finishes this chapter with the sternest warning: "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." This is hardly saying it's a matter of preference or optional. Damnation is the result of not making one's calling and election sure. Are you called to be a Jew of the Nation of Israel? Are you called to be Gentile a proselyte of the Gate? Or are you called to be a member of the Body of Christ, which sits above the angelically attended ceremonies, rituals, symbolisms, food restrictions and holidays? Hint: The former two are not present options.
I have never said that was my motivation for abstaining from Christ-Mass, Yorzhik, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not rightly judging and for egregiously presuming to know my motives. Yorzhik, you're one of the few sharp thinking Open Theists I've encountered and I'm frankly disgusted that you would stoop to this.
You're missing the point, and contradicting yourself in the process. If you wanted to make the 4th of July into a day about Christ, that would be forbidden, too. Paul isn't limiting these commands to Jewish holydays, but man-made made-up ones as well. All religiously symbolic, ceremonial, ritualist behavior is condemned by Paul.
If you "make it about Him," it becomes a religious observance, and you're separating yourself from Christ by doing that, regardless of what holiday you use as a religious observance.
They do indeed have very much to do with, except presently the holy angels are in abeyance. They have no mediatory ministry today as they did with Israel and the nations. So which angels do you think get involved with religious ceremony today, Lighthouse?
Hint: 1Co 11:14,15 " 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."
Notice what Paul says in the passage you cite. He urges them to be of the same mind (1Co 1:10), united according to his Gospel (cf. Ro 2:16 16:25 2Ti 2:8), the unity of which is outlined in Eph 4:4-6. He has been informed of contentions between Jew/Gentile and Body saints and is writing to deal with those matters. Paul makes the point that, although he baptized some Jewish believers and Gentile converts (as it was fitting and required for him to do), he emphatically states "... Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: ..." He makes a distinction between HIS gospel (that of the risen Christ), which is non-ritualistic, and that of the earthly Jesus, Who did not separate baptism from the Jewish gospel (Mt. 28:19,20).
If that is your conclusion, then will continue to separate yourself from Christ by observing this religious holiday.
That doesn't mean you are free to disobey the gospel, which is what you're doing if you celebrate Christ-Mass.
As I indicated to Lighthouse, you can put yourself under the angelic realm by making anything into a religious ritual. If brushing your teeth became a time of special religious devotion for you, then you've made it into a ritual, putting yourself under the angelic realm and violated Paul's gospel.
By the way, the Mosaic Law was not legalistic, no more and no less than Paul's Law or Noah's Law. Furthermore, it was not "defunct" as the result of the cross and resurrection. Jesus continued to teach the Mosaic law AFTER His resurrection. In fact, He commanded His disciples to observe everything whatsoever He commanded them, included the sacrifices, sin offerings, spice tithes, food restrictions, etc. that He taught throughout His earthly ministry (Mt. 28:19,20 cf. Mt. 23:1-3).
You're asking me how would it seem to un-churched people if churched people behave unbiblically? You're asking me to let the Christ-hating world be a reason for celebrating something that the Bible strictly forbids. What's wrong with this picture?
I won't let you or the "unchurched" world dictate to me how I should honor God's word. Just because the unsaved world thinks Christians should behave a certain way doesn't mean I should let that determine my behavior. The lie of Christ-Mass was manufactured by apostates to begin with, and for the world to now expect Christians to observe that day has nothing to do with what the Bible teaches.
Show me my error. Show me how you are not severing yourself from your Head by celebrating religious holidays.
And if you do so as a religious exercise, it is contrary to the gospel and you are separating yourself from Christ.
It's frightening. With Paul, I say "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid [for] you, ..." (Gal 4:9-11).
It happens the same time every year. That is ritualistic. It involves the same symbolic behaviors year after year. That is ritualistic.
If you're not literally expecting the Messiah to be re-born of a virgin on the winter solstice this year, then it's ceremonial only.
There doesn't have to be. As long as you affix religious significance to it, you've violated Paul's gospel and have turned again "to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ... Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." Gal 4:9,10.
No. Please go back and read my previous posts. Both of my male children are circumcised, but not for religious reasons or purposes. My church meets on Sundays, but the day itself is not religiously significant (as it is, say, for Sabbatarian Presbies or Seventh Day Adventists). If I said to my church, "Good morning. How are you all this fine Lord's Day?," jaws would drop, eyes would bug out and I would be taken aside and checked for dementia.
philosophizer
New member
So if it was a different day/month/season every year, would it be okay?
Are there any "rituals?" Maybe some people do the exact same things every year for Christmas, making them into "rituals," but not everyone does. Not everyone has Christmas rituals.
Ceremonial as in consisting of rituals.
Why can't I celebrate the birth of my Lord? I'm not talking rituals. I'm not talking ceremonies. I'm merely talking celebration.
Yes. They felt they were required to observe special days.
Right. We are free to do so. Not slaves to its necessity.
It's also very possible that you are a flaming loon! :freak:
The possibilities are endless aren't they?
So how many are in the Body Jim.... 48?It says you're either not elect or you're self-deluded or in denial. I don't think you'll be able to stay that way permanently, if you are elect. It may depend on how much baggage someone has. It will eventually get to you. It may have to simmer a while.
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Maybe a 100?
Maybe a thousand or so people out there who meet your bizarre criteria for salvation?
The gospel according to Jim....
Hilston 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Oh and you must not celebrate religious holidays..... errrrr....... well at the very least you must feel really guilty celebrating religious holidays.... THEN... and only then you will be saved.
No, because it would still be religiously symbolic and ceremonial. But we all know that would against the ceremonial, ritualistic grain of the sin nature, which rebels specifically against the gospel of this dispensation.
Sure they do. They follow a prescribed set of rules of behavior, all in the name of Christ. Setting up the tree is a rite. Going to Christ-Mass service is a rite. Buying gifts and cards is a rite. Setting aside a special day to celebrate an unbiblical holiday is a rite. Decorating yourselves and places and things with Christ-Mass adornments is religious symbolism. All of these are contrary to Paul's gospel.
You can, as long as you do not do it ceremonially, ritualistically or symbolically. We are to celebrate His birth, His life, His death, His resurrection, and His special commission to Paul without ceasing. We are not to ritualize, ceremonialize these things. We are not to create symbolic representations for the sake of worship. We are not to set aside special times, special places, special symbols, or special clothing in order to worship. The Body of Christ is continually in worship, unlike Israel who had special time, special places, etc., and all this because the holy angels were inextricably involved in mediating that worship.
Then don't observe a special day with special ritualistic behavior and ceremonial symbolism. You can't say you don't do these things when you do.
So as long as you don't view animal sacrifice as "required," it's OK to make a burnt offering unto the Lord?
Hilston wrote:
My church meets on Sundays, but the day itself is not religiously significant (as it is, say, for Sabbatarian Presbies or Seventh Day Adventists).
First of all, we don't require worship ever. Nor do we have special worship times. We worship without ceasing. Furthermore, we are required by scripture to meet for fellowship and to study God's word, and so we choose to do it on a day that most people have free. Our meetings have no religious rituals, symbolisms or ceremonies, but we do have order, which is something the Lord emphatically commanded through Paul.
The day is not about Christ any more or any less than any other day of the week. We have to choose a day to meet for study, and that is the most convenient day.
The Christ-Mass is unbiblical and prohibited by scripture. Believers gathering for study and edification is commanded by scripture.
That's called a contradiction.
Hilston wrote:
If I said to my church, "Good morning. How are you all this fine Lord's Day?," jaws would drop, eyes would bug out and I would be taken aside and checked for dementia.
So are you telling me, by agreeing with what I've conveyed immediately above, that you've never called Sunday "The Lord's Day"?
While you may claim this, it is belied by the religious significance you bring to your activities on that day. And while you might wish to maintain that the day is no more holy and no more special than any other day, the vast majority of people in Christendumb say you're wrong.
It does no good to deny this, Knight. It doesn't help to call names either. The question is whether or not dispensational sins are serious. You seem to take them lightly. I don't and neither does scripture.
No. And the possibilities I've offered are biblical.
This shows that you're not thinking very carefully and you're responding emotionally rather than rationally. You've asked me my criterion for salvation elsewhere, Knight. You know full well that my only criterion is that Jesus Christ died in your behalf. That's it. If Jesus died for you, then you're saved. As to how many that includes, I have no idea. I don't go around declaring who is or who isn't saved. It isn't biblical to do so.
Oh... don't be a big ol' baby. :baby: I was just teasin' you.
You continue...
I would contend that you haven't even come close to making a biblical case for your assertion.
But you also claimed that if I never feel guilty about celebrating Christmas then I am not part of the elect. :kookoo:
Jim... you are a legalist. You are attempting to put people under the bondage of imaginary laws that simply aren't there.
philosophizer
New member
No, you're generalizing. Christmas trees, cards, and decorations are things that some people do. Calling them a "rite" is wrong.
At what point does "celebration" become "ceremony?"
Hmm... Question for you. Do you consider crosses forbidden as well?
Yup. I have a Christmas tree in my living room. It has several presents around it. And yes, on Christmas, I'm going to a family get together that we have every year. Gasp-- ritualistic behavior!
Okay, you've said that the Jews were required ceremonies of worship because they were not in the full connect of the Body of Christ, and their worship was mediated through angels. Their relationship with God was dependent upon those ceremonies. My relationship with God isn't dependant upon ceremonies. If I thought it did, the relationship would be a troubled one. That's what I see Paul saying.
Sure. If I wanted to climb a mountain and grab a ram and sacrifice it to God, I could. So what?
I don't view the sabbath laws as required. But if I wanted to I could do absolutely nothing all Saturday long, would that be wrong? Should I be forbidden from doing no work that day? What if I, while I'm doing nothing, spend that time thinking about God? Should I be required to do at least one piece of work that day so I don't inadvertently "keep the sabbath?"
Nope. I've never called Sunday "The Lord's Day." I have probably said "this is the day that the Lord has made" on a few Sundays. But I've said that on other days of the week too. What's your question about?
And, again, that's called generalizing. So what? I do say that no day is more holy than the next. But I also say that no day is exactly the same. Today is today. Yesterday I was a day younger. Tomorrow I'll be a day older. And so will everyone else on earth. Times change. The calandar revolves. One day there's snow on the ground; the next there isn't. What does it matter what Dec 25 looks like? It's not more holy than, say, June 17th. So what does it matter what people do on that day?
The only response is that Paul expressly forbid it. And I think you have a misunderstanding. I don't see it making sense along with everything else Paul said.
It's funny how this claim is made without (a) any counterarguments from scripture, or (b) any sound critique of the passages I've cited.
You apparently have a very low view of God's dispensational laws and apparently put very little confidence in God's promise to work in us, both to will and to work for His good pleasure, and to bring to completion the good work He has begun in us. If you are elect, you will eventually experience discomfort about anti-Pauline behavior. That is the promise.
It is no more legalistic to prohibit religious holidays than it is to prohibit murder, dunkenness, water baptism or spice tithes. The laws are there. I've cited them over and over again. You prefer to ignore them or to irrationally explain them away as "dispensationally optional." That is because you apparently have a low view of God's Word and His commands for the Body of Christ.
Last edited:
Counter what????
You have no compelling biblical argument! How can I counter what isn't there?
The gospel of Jim is bankrupt.
On a side note....
Jim are you the guy who told me several years back that you don't have church every Sunday to avoid church becoming a ritual? I can't remember now if that was you or someone else. I apologize in advance if that wasn't you.
My generalizations are generally true. The fact that you observe a special religious day, Christ-Mass Day, and bring religious significance to your activities on that day suffice to condemn your behavior as anti-Biblical and dividing against the Body of Christ.
There's nothing wrong with either one until they become religious. The appropriate question is: "At what point do celebrations or ceremonies become religious?"
Absolutely! Religious symbols are strictly forbidden by scripture for the Body of Christ.
In so doing, you separate yourself from Christ and violate God's commands for this dispensation.
And that's because God has chosen the Body of Christ to sit above angels, above earthly ceremony. That's why Paul equates religious ceremony, ritual and symbolic behavior as angel worship in Colossians 2.
He is saying that, and part of what he is saying is do not do these things; do not take from scripture what belongs to Israel and the nations.
So what? :noway: It's a shadow that belongs to Israel, not to the Body of Christ. The Lord, through Paul's writings, gives emphatic prohibitions against this and all you can say is "so what"? Sheesh.
After all this, you're still without a clue, aren't you? If you "do nothing", abstain from work and spend time thinking about God for religious reasons, then it's forbidden. If you do these things with the intent to adhere to a religious prescription, whether self-imposed or not, then it's forbidden. If you happen to do these things with no regard to any religious directive, then it's perfectly fine.
Do you have any objection to calling Sunday "The Lord's day"? If so, why? If not, why not?
If you celebrate Christ-Mass, you contradict your claim. It's that simple.
It matters to them. It matters to you. This entire discussion proves that.
Saying so doesn't make it so. Prove your assertions. For you to participate in Christ-Mass is no different than participating in a Passover Hagaddah or a Ramadan observance or a druidic winter solstice celebration. It's all forbidden by Scripture to the Body of Christ. You trample underfoot the special place given to the Body of Christ by behaving contrary to the position we've been given. That is why Paul is so emphatic when he warns the Galatians about having turned again "to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ... Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years." Gal 4:9,10. He had grave fear concerning them. I have the same for you. Knight would call Paul a legalist for that concern. You would accuse Paul of generalizing.
Show me the weakness of the argument. Show where I've misinterpreted scripture. Show where I've violated the context. It's the easiest thing in the world to provide counter arguments to non-compelling claims. If that's all it took to show the superiority of one's view, there would be no debates. Both sides would just stipulate: "Your argument is not compelling." At least respect the debate, Knight. A lack of counterargument is evidence that your protests are inane.
It's not my gospel, Knight. It's Christ's as given to Paul, and it will judge you if you refuse to repent (Ro 2:16).
It wasn't me. That would be silly.
philosophizer
New member
You said: "If you happen to do these things with no regard to any religious directive, then it's perfectly fine."
I don't. I don't celebrate Christmas because of or as part of a religious directive. Only people who think Dec 25 is "more holy" do that. I just do it because I want to.
No objection. Sunday is "The Lord's day." As is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc. I've just never called it that because that's a rather silly truism.
It is implied in the behavior itself. That's like saying "I offer blood sacrifices to God, but not as a religious directive", or "I offer sacrifices to idols, but not as part of a religious directive," or "I pray to Dagon, but not as a religious directive." The only way to repudiate religious ceremonial, ritualistic or symbolic activity is to eschew it completely, just as Paul instructs throughout his epistles.