ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?
- Thread starter Lucky
- Start date
:chuckle:
Oh.. and thanks for the kind words!
Hilston-
Does Jesus celebrate his own birthday?
Does Jesus celebrate his own birthday?
No. If the Body of Christ is going to adminstrate over the affairs of the created order with Christ, it behoves us to know and understand the scriptures of all dispensational households.
That's an excellent verse that shows that Paul had a dual ministry. Paul honors Israel's gospel when appropriate. He is seen circumcising Timothy, keeping vows, symbolically shaving his head, sponsoring the rituals for new proselytes, offering sacrifices in the Temple and being found ceremonially pure.
Peter is not talking about the Body of Christ. He is talking about the elect of the Nations. Notice that they enforce food restrictions. These are forbidden for the Body of Christ (Col 2). This again is part of Paul's dual ministry. On the one hand, he is the apostle for the Body of Christ, the dispenser of the Mystery Gospel. On the other hand, he is chosen by God to confirm the promises to Israel.
For more information on proselytes, see the following link: Two Types of Proselytes.
Hilston asked: How do you define "religious"?
Hilston asked: Why do you exchange gifts?
That is the most asinine definition I've seen of religion EVER. The word religion is used in the following verses: Ac 26:5 Ga 1:13,14 Jas 1:26,27. Does your definition apply to these verses?
Hilston asked: Why do you exchange gifts?
OK, why do you give gifts on Christ-Mass?
STONE
New member
I am not sure how you are relating that Paul and Peter had distinct gospels and ministries as the verses I provided can be seen to contradict that. Further in Acts 15 it is blatantly clear that Peter and Paul agreed on the same Gospel, and that Gospel being without requirement of ordinances.
Sozo
New member
How does my definition disgree with the verses in Acts and Galatians?
James is telling them something that affirms what should define religion in it's purest sense, but no one can keep themselves unstained from the world.
I give gifts on Christmas because it's around the time when most of the stores are having their big sales.
STONE
New member
I've considered the statement you made above and it concerns me.
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings" (1 Tim 6:3,4)
The verses you quoted show that Paul honored Israel's gospel, ministered to Israel's elect, and confirmed the promises to that chosen nation. The difference between Paul's and Peter's gospels is taught throughout Paul's epistles. Have you read any of the links I've included in these posts? The papers are not that long, and they would answer these questions for you. Here is one again: The Seven Ones
Of course! Christ's kingdom apostles (Peter and the Eleven) would agree with Christ's Body apostles (Paul, Epaphroditus, et al). Paul kept Passover when he went to Jerusalem, just as Peter ate pork when he went to Antioch. It's a mutual respect for each other's distinctive gospel content (Gal 2:7).
This isn't true. What Paul and Barnabas delivered to the elect Gentiles was a letter affirming the Gentile ordinances. Did you read the link I sent in the previous post. It's not very long and it would answer these questions for you. Here it is again: Two Kinds of Proselytes
Hilston wrotes:No. If the Body of Christ is going to adminstrate over the affairs of the created order with Christ, it behoves us to know and understand the scriptures of all dispensational households.
Of course it concerns you, because it is contrary to you believe. Everybody under the sun who cares about doctrine is going to think this verse gives sufficient grounds to dismiss every doctrine different from their own, just as you may think this verse gives you grounds to dismiss my doctrine. Now that we have this out of the way, perhaps we can actually discuss the content of what Paul is talking about in this passage?
Your reference is incorrect. It should be 1Co 15:11.
It's appropriate that you would quote this passage, because it, too, demonstrates the distinctions between Paul's and Peter's gospels. Notice how the first part of chapter 15 describes the historical sequence of revelation of Messiah to Israel and her apostles (Peter et al). Notice how Paul distinguishes himself from them, not only by setting himself apart as the "last of all", but as one "born too early" (v. 8). You might have a case if Paul had claimed to be "born too late" (i.e. after the resurrection and ascension of Christ). But the Greek word means "abortioned." He was born too early, meaning, he was born at a time when Israel's gospel and the Body gospel overlapped, rather than being born later at a point when Israel's gospel had fully waned.
Not only this, but notice the fact that Paul, not only recognizes himself as being apart from them in history, but when he is converted, he avoids their instruction. Instead of receiving instruction regarding the gospel via the proper chain of revelation (from the "sent ones" who preceded him), he goes off into the desert to be personally tutored by the risen glorified Christ for three years (Gal 1, 2Co 12). For what possible reason would an apostle of Christ (Paul) avoid the instruction of the apostles who preceded him, unless he were being given something that had been previously hidden, held in silence, not revealed any time previously to anyone? And that is exactly how Paul describes his gospel: Held in silence, previously hidden, the Mystery, not revealed to the prophets (Ro 11:25 16:25,26 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16).
For more detail regarding the difference between Paul's and Peter's gospels, see the following: Galatians 2: Two Gospels or Two Audiences?
The verse you quoted is in the context of Paul's boast/humility. On the one hand he points out his unworthiness to be an apostle because of persecuting the church of God (i.e. elect Israel). Whereas on the other hand, he boasted that he labored more than the Twelve (yet another distinction consonant with the distinctive gospel with which Paul was commissioned). And then to put it all in perspective, he attributes his success to the grace of God. That is to say, it's all of God, that Paul is nothing. Thus, "whether I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed," in other words, by the grace of God. THAT is Paul's point; not, as you are suggesting, that all the distinctions made here and elsewhere are suddenly not distinctions (!).
Last edited:
Ac 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Is Ac 13:43 talking about proselytes who were attempting to "appease God through actions, or to end one's immoral behavior through systematic application, rather than total dependence on God's provision?
Ac 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
Is Paul talking about a religion that taught people to "appease God through actions, or to end one's immoral behavior through systematic application, rather than total dependence on God's provision?"
Ga 1:13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: 14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
Is Paul talking about a religion that taught people to "appease God through actions, or to end one's immoral behavior through systematic application, rather than total dependence on God's provision?"
Jas 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
By your definition, James is describing the pure "appeasement of God through actions" and the pure "end [of] one's immoral behavior through systematic application, rather than total dependence on God's provision."
I don't know where you got that definition, but it sounds more like an editorial than something that is actually useful in communication. And that is what is annoying. All this time you've had a definition in mind that is contrary to normative usage, and that disgusts me. Here is a dictionary definition that is suitable for what I've been describing:
religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Can you agree with this definition?
Sozo, on this planet, the big sales come after Christmas. Everyone reading this knows your answer is a fabrication. So what's the real answer, Sozo? Why do you give gifts on Christmas?
Sozo
New member
Yes! Absolutely! The Jews believed that righteousness came through the Law. They believed that their actions (rituals, ceremonies, moral fortitude) made them acceptable.
See above.
See above.
The dictionary also says this:
To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.
James was well aware of the religion that persecuted those who had accepted Jesus as Messiah. He was telling those who had suffered persecution that "pure" religion would visit widows and orphans, and it would also keep itself unstained by the world, which James knew was impossible, and he says this to prove that their (the persecuters) religion is worthless.
Why does it matter?
Originally posted by granite1010
"Celebrating Christmas, Easter, Passover, Sabbaths, Ramadan, Hanukah, etc. or any religious holiday is violation of Paul's gospel, just as is water baptism, and for the very same reasons."
...and I would love to be there while you explain to a Muslim how he's violating the gospel of Paul by celebrating Ramadan.
I thought Paul warned his followers from senseless bickering. Which goes to show how often this injunction is adhered to.
Christians--taking the Christ out of Christmas since 2004! What a bunch of nuts. You people can't even agree to celebrate the birth of your savior on the day your church has traditionally observed it for centuries. And you expect everyone else to listen to you, get with the program, and accept Jesus. On this subject the legalists on this thread have more in common with Jehovah's Witnesses than mainstream Christianity.
What a zoo.
:chuckle:
Where do you get this idea?
Please read the following paper. It will help to clarify your confusion about grace in the Jewish dispensation.
Pauline Law and Justification
Hilston wrote:
"Here is a dictionary definition that is suitable for what I've been describing:
religion: the service and worship of God or the supernatural
religious: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
Can you agree with this definition?"
OK, fine, but I'm looking at primary definitions; not obscure non-normative ones. I'm asking if you will agree with the primary definition. If not, I will try to find a better word to describe what I'm talking about.
Hilston asked: Why do you give gifts on Christmas?
You made the claim that you celebrated Christmas in a non-religious way. I'm trying to find out if that's true or not.
STONE
New member
Hilston,
Thanks for getting back to me and for correcting the chapter and verse misprint.
I don't have much time right now but I looked into what you presented and can only say this now.
The greek word '1626' you are referring to as abortion is a combination of ek(out) and '5134' trauma (wounding, affliction) and is only used in scripture in this verse. Born is not even part of the word. Nor is it in context according to the passage. Possibly more likely he is referring to Jesus's persecution by Him rather than referring to himself as an abortion? The overlapping you are talking about it seems you are adding on.
I will go into this and your other points more when I have time.
Yorzhik,
Let me preface this by saying I was encouraged to see that you brought Tim McMahon into this discussion. He has offered useful information and expertise in the past, and I was eager to see what he had to say about this current discussion. Unfortunately, I couldn't have been more disappointed and, frankly, annoyed by the ineptness of his analysis.
Mt 9:30 And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
Now will you or Tim tell me that this wasn't a command? The text says Jesus charged them--the men He healed-- to "see that no man know it." The word "know" (ginosketo) is a third-person imperative. Do you or Tim want to claim that this was optional? That Jesus wasn't really giving a command because the imperative was in the third person? Do you want to see the rest of the occurrence of the third-person imperatives in scriptures? Examples just like that one are all over the place: Mt 9:30 11:15 13:9,43 15:4 16:24 19:6,12 24:15,17 Mr 4:9,23 7:10 Mr 7:16 8:34 10:9 13:14 Lu 3:11 8:8 9:23 14:35 Joh 7:37 12:26 14:27 Ac 2:36 Ro 6:12 14:3 15:2 1Co 3:10,18 7:2,3,11-13 7:17,20,21,24,36 1Co 10:12,24 11:28,34 14:27,28,30,37,38 16:2 Ga 6:4,6,17 Eph 4:26 4:28 5:6,33 Col 2:16,18 3:15,16 2Th 3:10 1Ti 2:11 4:12 5:16 Tit 2:15 Heb 13:1 Jas 1:4-6 1:13 5:13,20 1Pe 4:15,16 2Pe 3:8 1Jo 2:24 3:7 Re 22:17
Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Pr 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Am 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
Hilston wrote:
Paul didn't make them up, Yorzhik. These laws were held in silence, kept absolutely secret from the foundation of the world, designed and reserved specifically for the Body of Christ. This cannot be missed. Please see the following references: Ro 11:25 16:25,26 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16. Paul receved the laws of the Mystery directly from the risen and glorified Christ Himself, in an unprecedented manner, apart from angelic mediation, apart from ritual, ceremony, symbolism, and holiday. That's the point. The Body of Christ, of which Paul was the charter member, has a heavenly hope, not an earthly one (as Israel and the nations). Therefore, we have direct, unmediated access to the Godhead. For Israel, they had many mediators, many priests, many intermediary steps in their worship (ceremony, symbolism, etc.). For the Body of Christ, there is but one Mediator between God and man: Christ Jesus Himself.
Let me preface this by saying I was encouraged to see that you brought Tim McMahon into this discussion. He has offered useful information and expertise in the past, and I was eager to see what he had to say about this current discussion. Unfortunately, I couldn't have been more disappointed and, frankly, annoyed by the ineptness of his analysis.
It isn't the same; it's a worse crime and harsher prohibition, precisely because dispensational sin is far more offensive to God than interdispensational or transdispensational sin. That's Paul point of saying HIS gospel will judge the men of this age (Ro 2:16). Men will be judged in a dispensationally specific way, according to a dispensationally specific standard of righteousness.
This is a logical contradiction. You can't address a third party with a third-person imperative. It a command addressing a second party in a context that involves to third party. When a concern regarding the second party bears upon a third party, the imperative that pertains to the third party is indirectly, but no less emphatically, commanding the second party with respect to that concern. For example, when Jesus healed the blind men, and commanded them to make sure no one found out about it, He used the third-person imperative:
Mt 9:30 And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it.
Now will you or Tim tell me that this wasn't a command? The text says Jesus charged them--the men He healed-- to "see that no man know it." The word "know" (ginosketo) is a third-person imperative. Do you or Tim want to claim that this was optional? That Jesus wasn't really giving a command because the imperative was in the third person? Do you want to see the rest of the occurrence of the third-person imperatives in scriptures? Examples just like that one are all over the place: Mt 9:30 11:15 13:9,43 15:4 16:24 19:6,12 24:15,17 Mr 4:9,23 7:10 Mr 7:16 8:34 10:9 13:14 Lu 3:11 8:8 9:23 14:35 Joh 7:37 12:26 14:27 Ac 2:36 Ro 6:12 14:3 15:2 1Co 3:10,18 7:2,3,11-13 7:17,20,21,24,36 1Co 10:12,24 11:28,34 14:27,28,30,37,38 16:2 Ga 6:4,6,17 Eph 4:26 4:28 5:6,33 Col 2:16,18 3:15,16 2Th 3:10 1Ti 2:11 4:12 5:16 Tit 2:15 Heb 13:1 Jas 1:4-6 1:13 5:13,20 1Pe 4:15,16 2Pe 3:8 1Jo 2:24 3:7 Re 22:17
No, he's not. If he were, he would have used the second-person imperative and specified to whom his command was intended. Paul giving the same kind of command to the Colossians that Jesus gave the healed blindmen in Mt. 9:30, for the same kind of linguistic effect.
No, it's not. I use the third-person imperative all the time, especially with my children: "Ethan, your sister will not scream about you pulling her hair anymore." A 6-year-old understands the third-person imperative. He knows that the mandate is directed at him, even though the imperative pertains to a third party.
Tim is overthinking this. It isn't so arcane.
I agree with that sentence.
Is he serious? He doesn't see that this is a command directed to all the saints at Rome, but stated in the third person? Could a Roman saint, reading this passage, actually say, "Paul obviously isn't talking to me, because he uses the third-person imperative, and I, as the reader, would be addressed with a second-person imperative." It's ridiculous, Yorzhik. I appears Tim's "much learning hath made [him] mad." Don't get me wrong, I'm not an obscurantist; I'm as interested in expanding my knowledge of details as the next guy. But when you can't see the forest AND the trees, you've got a major problem.
Why does Tim use this verse? It supports the use of the third-person imperative as a command of the subject in the same way I am arguing for Col 2:16.
Exactly! Thank you Tim for further buttressing my argument.
Bingo.
Has anyone suggested or implied a first-person imperative?
Why is Tim wasting his time with these rudimentary explanations?
Of course!!! Often imperatives are without an explicit subject, so it has to be supplied. Anyone with a basic understanding of grammar can usually tell the difference between the subject and the direct object or indirect object. So what's his point?
He's missed the whole point. It was a matter of "inviting" judgment. For crying out loud, Yorzhik, it's what the Judaizers came to do: To regulate, to discriminate, to esteem, to distinguish, to judge men according to whether or not they complied with the Mosaic Law.
No kidding. So obviously, Paul's intent was not to command the Judaizers to stop judging. Sheesh.
Wrong wrong wrong. Good grief, Yorzhik, if Paul were making a statement about what the Judaizers had a right to do or not to do, he wouldn't have spent the bulk of this epistle (and Galatians) describing the reasoning for his prohibition of religious ceremony and holidays. He wouldn't have gotten in Peter's face in public about observing Jewish food laws.
Of course it is, that's why he is prohibiting it. What an abject disappointment this entire post is, Yorzhik. Please, send my comments back to Tim and ask him to try again. He gets a big F as far as I'm concerned. Well maybe a D. No, on second thought: I'm sticking with the F.
Interesting, isn't it, that Paul would equate biblical Jewish behavior with pagan ceremonialism. Why is that, Yorzhik? Could it be because Paul is saying to the members of the Body of Christ that ALL religious ceremony, whether the pagan stuff you came out of, or the Jewish stuff that entices you now, are tantamount to angel worship, and you must not do it.
Why? Jesus commanded the observance of Torah festivals after His death, entombment, and resurrection (Mt 28:19,20 cf. Mt 23:1-3). So on what grounds does Tim decry them?
I see. So elect Israel did not have the freedom to worship God as they interacted with other elect Jews?
This is crap, Yorzhik. God was no less concerned about "proper motivation" under the Mosaic Law. Doesn't Tim recall the verses that say the sacrifices were a stench in God's nostrils because they were not brought with the "proper motivation"? Doesn't Tim recall the verses such as:
Isa 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
Pr 15:8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight.
Am 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
That's because the Roman and Corinthian assemblies had significant contingents of Jews that were to be respected and honored as the elect of that Nation. Romans 14, 1Co 8 and 10 cannot apply today, as there is no elect Israel before God and no surviving kingdom saints.
No one is suggesting a lockstep egalitarian uniform community. But Paul did say the Body of Christ should be of one mind, striving together for the faith of the gospel. That is, Paul's gospel, the gospel of the uncircumcision, the held-in-silence Mystery. (Ro 15:6 2Co 13:11 Php 1:27 2:2).
This is garbage. It emasculates the force, the brilliance, the beauty of Paul's commands to the Body of Christ. It dilutes the richness and poignancy of Paul's sternest warnings born out of the wonderful distinctions that Christ died to secure for the Body of Christ.
No, it's not interesting. It's sophistry. Try again.
IT'S OBVIOUS!!!! Good grief, man!!!
Now was that so hard? Tim doesn't understand the ramifications of what Christ's sacrifice secured for the Body of Christ. It was NOT just freedom from the obligation to observe the law. It was removing from us the angelic authority that attended those observances by openly declaring, through the Mystery, this new and unprecedented group of God's elect, the Body of Christ, the subject of the Mystery, held in silence from the foundation of the world. The reason we are prohibited from religious ceremony is because such behavior would place us under the angelic realm, which Christ's sacrifice removed for us.
Wrong wrong wrong. Peter was no legalist, and neither were the men sent from James in Galatians 2. The Judaizers mistakenly thought the saved Gentiles, members of the Body of Christ, were to become proselytes of righteousness in order to serve Messiah. They were not imposing legalism, but rather the true gospel of Israel. It's just that they were trying to impose a different gospel (Israel's) in the wrong place, upon the wrong people.
It's not. It's not even close.
No one is saying that. Paul is telling them not to listen to those who would impose religious ceremony and holidays upon them. Not to be bewitched or enticed by them. Those who preach Christmas or water baptism are the kinds of people Paul is talking about; anyone who would impose religious ceremony or holidays upon members of the Body of Christ.
It isn't secondary. It's emphatic, unequivocal and strictly stated.
No, just as I accomplish more by telling my son, "Tabitha will not scream again because you pulled her hair." If I were just to say, "Don't pull your sister's hair," it doesn't convey as much information, nor is it as emphatic, unequivocal or as strictly stated as "Tabitha will not scream again because you pulled her hair."
This is wrong. The Judaizers understood the awesomeness of Christ. Peter and the Eleven, who were obedient to all the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Law of Moses, continuing after the death and resurrection of Christ, did not have a diluted view of Christ's awesomeness.
:kookoo:
More crap. Neither the Galatians nor the Colossians had suddenly "forgotten" that they were saved by grace through faith. This is bald eisogesis born out of a failure to rightly understand the distinctives of the Mystery. It's starting to bore me.
Tim totally disrespects Paul's own evaluation of the saints at Colossae and Galatia. Paul commended them and blessed them for their understanding of grace in salvation. He was warning them about seeking spiritual benefit ("being made perfect", Gal 3:3) via ceremonialism, which is right and proper for Israel and the Nations to do, but not for the Body of Christ.
See, Tim just doesn't get it. "Touch not, taste not" regulations were right and proper for Israel, but not for the Body of Christ.
Tripe.
Sorry, Yorzhik. I know you really want this to be the case. You even went as far as seeking out the Greek Scholar to support your behavior (and his own, by the way), just so you can have your Christmas cake and eat it, too. But the scriptures command otherwise, and you will be repudiating Christ if you choose to celebrate religious ceremonies and holidays.
The command is clear. It's your thinking that isn't.
You are completely wrong. The gospel for today has laws active for this dispensation only. Search and see. We are not to follow Moses. We are not to follow the earthly Jesus the way Peter and the Eleven did. We are to follow the risen and glorified Christ as Paul followed Christ (1Co 11:1) and obey the ordinances that Paul delivered to the Body of Christ (1Co 11:2).
Israel's gospel was a gospel of grace; are you aware of that? So was the gospel of the nations. Each dispensation had laws and grace. This false notion of setting law in opposition to grace seems to be the source of myriad problems in your (and Tim's) understanding of scripture.
Hilston wrote:
Paul didn't make them up, Yorzhik. These laws were held in silence, kept absolutely secret from the foundation of the world, designed and reserved specifically for the Body of Christ. This cannot be missed. Please see the following references: Ro 11:25 16:25,26 1Co 2:7 Eph 1:9 3:3-9 5:32 6:19 Col 1:26,27 2:2 4:3 1Ti 3:9,16. Paul receved the laws of the Mystery directly from the risen and glorified Christ Himself, in an unprecedented manner, apart from angelic mediation, apart from ritual, ceremony, symbolism, and holiday. That's the point. The Body of Christ, of which Paul was the charter member, has a heavenly hope, not an earthly one (as Israel and the nations). Therefore, we have direct, unmediated access to the Godhead. For Israel, they had many mediators, many priests, many intermediary steps in their worship (ceremony, symbolism, etc.). For the Body of Christ, there is but one Mediator between God and man: Christ Jesus Himself.
What are you talking about? What laws are "naturally known"? And why shouldn't God spell things out for fallen man to learn how to obey Him?
Oh, it's natural all right. It comes right out of nature -- the SIN nature. It is the rebellion of the sin nature that drives men into ceremonialism and religious holidays. That's why Paul's warning was so emphatic, unequivocal and strictly stated. Do not be enticed by these things, because they will entice you. You have been enticed, Yorzhik, and you've succumbed. You've given in to your fleshly nature, and you dress it up in religious garb in order to justify it.
It's an emphatic prohibition against our sin natures, which is quite natural.
On the contrary, it is not only emphatic, unequivocal, and strictly stated, but the consequences of violating these dispensational laws are far more grave and horrifying than murder or stealing. No where does Paul warn that stealing and murder will separate you from Christ. No where does Paul warn that lying or cheating will cause you to fall from grace. But he does say this about observing religious ceremonies and holidays.
It doesn't have to be. It is how the word was understood at the time.
1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one who persecuted Jesus? Uh. No. According to several lexicons and dictionary references, the word means "abortioned" or "miscarried."
"to cut or excise out, to cause or suffer abortion, miscarry. An abortion, one born prematurely" S. Zodhiates, Complete Word Study Dictionary
"a child untimely born, an abortion" E.W. Bullinger, Critical Lexicon and Concordance of the English and Greek New Testament.
"an abortion, baby prematurely born," Wm. D. Mounce, The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament
"'an abortion, an untimely birth'; from ektitrosko, 'to miscarry'" W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words
"a miscarriage, an untimely birth," Wigram-Green, The New Englishman's Greek Concordance and Lexicon
There are plenty more I could cite. Now don't get me wrong; just because all these men agree doesn't mean they're right. I have often gone against the various scholars and linguists when I've found the context and usage of a word to be contrary to their claims. I don't think this is such a case. But if you want to make an argument to the contrary, I'm all ears.
Of course it's going to seem that way to you. I, however, was forced to this conclusion, and have seen it borne out elsewhere in scripture, because of the framework by which I understand the scripture.
JustAChristian
New member
How The Christian Should Celebrate Christmas.
How The Christian Should Celebrate Christmas.
Often there are things that we believe to be in the Bible and they are not. Let's consider some of these that pertain to this time of year. Was Jesus born in a stable in Bethlehem? Matthew 2:1 and Luke: 4,7 tell us that He was born in that manner. The Shepherd’s coming to the stable to see the baby Jesus is a fact found in Luke 2:15-16. Were there three wise men and did they visit Jesus in the stable? The Bible does not tell us how many wise men came to see Jesus , however, it does mention three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt.2: 11) . This causes many to conclude there were three visitors traditionally called Maji. We find they presented these gifts to Him in a house though and not at the stable (Matt. 2:11).
Jesus Christ’s birth is a historical fact . The Bible, however, does not give a specific date. The Bible tells us that Caesar Augustus was emperor and Herod was king at the time of His birth. By using this historical data we can arrive at an approximate year. By certain events that happened, such as shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields, perhaps even the season of the year . Again, we are not able to ascertain though, a specific date.
Are we made to wonder, by this continual festive season, if early Christians at this time, celebrated His birthday? Nothing in the Bible tells us the early church celebrated His birth. The special day of Christmas does not appear in the Bible and was unknown to the early Christians. The idea to celebrate Christmas on December 25 originated in the 4th century. The Catholic Church wanted to rival the festivities of a the competing pagan religion that threatened Christianity's existence. The Roman pagans celebrated the birthday of their sun god, Mithras during this same time of year. Although it was not popular, or even proper, to celebrate people's birthdays in those times, church leaders decided that in order to compete with the pagan celebration, they would order a festival in celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.
Although the actual season of Jesus' birth is thought to be in the Spring, the date of December 25 was chosen as the official birthday celebration as Christ's Mass so that it would compete directly with the rival pagan celebration. Therefore, the direct reason for our December 25th celebration was, in fact, derived from a battle to establish a religious superiority.
Though it is not inherently wrong to observe the day of Christmas as a national holiday, to exchange gifts, to have lighted trees and ornaments, to enjoy the childhood fantasies that come with the season, we should not impose upon the Word of God by making it a religious holiday. We should be directing ourselves spiritually based on authority and not traditions (Col. 3: 17).
JustAChristian
How The Christian Should Celebrate Christmas.
Often there are things that we believe to be in the Bible and they are not. Let's consider some of these that pertain to this time of year. Was Jesus born in a stable in Bethlehem? Matthew 2:1 and Luke: 4,7 tell us that He was born in that manner. The Shepherd’s coming to the stable to see the baby Jesus is a fact found in Luke 2:15-16. Were there three wise men and did they visit Jesus in the stable? The Bible does not tell us how many wise men came to see Jesus , however, it does mention three gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt.2: 11) . This causes many to conclude there were three visitors traditionally called Maji. We find they presented these gifts to Him in a house though and not at the stable (Matt. 2:11).
Jesus Christ’s birth is a historical fact . The Bible, however, does not give a specific date. The Bible tells us that Caesar Augustus was emperor and Herod was king at the time of His birth. By using this historical data we can arrive at an approximate year. By certain events that happened, such as shepherds watching over their flocks in the fields, perhaps even the season of the year . Again, we are not able to ascertain though, a specific date.
Are we made to wonder, by this continual festive season, if early Christians at this time, celebrated His birthday? Nothing in the Bible tells us the early church celebrated His birth. The special day of Christmas does not appear in the Bible and was unknown to the early Christians. The idea to celebrate Christmas on December 25 originated in the 4th century. The Catholic Church wanted to rival the festivities of a the competing pagan religion that threatened Christianity's existence. The Roman pagans celebrated the birthday of their sun god, Mithras during this same time of year. Although it was not popular, or even proper, to celebrate people's birthdays in those times, church leaders decided that in order to compete with the pagan celebration, they would order a festival in celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.
Although the actual season of Jesus' birth is thought to be in the Spring, the date of December 25 was chosen as the official birthday celebration as Christ's Mass so that it would compete directly with the rival pagan celebration. Therefore, the direct reason for our December 25th celebration was, in fact, derived from a battle to establish a religious superiority.
Though it is not inherently wrong to observe the day of Christmas as a national holiday, to exchange gifts, to have lighted trees and ornaments, to enjoy the childhood fantasies that come with the season, we should not impose upon the Word of God by making it a religious holiday. We should be directing ourselves spiritually based on authority and not traditions (Col. 3: 17).
JustAChristian
No behavior is "inherently" wrong, JustAChristian. What makes something wrong is its context and motivation. Observing Christmas and its attending religious traditions is contrary to scripture. That makes it wrong. It's not an option.
"Making it a religious holiday"? How is it even conceivable that Christmas could be observed as a non-religious holiday? How do you define "religious"?
Last edited: