ARCHIVE: Will You Be Celebrating Christmas?

[Christine]

Originally posted by Knight

So why did you just agree with Jim?

I don't see a contradiction. Mr. Hilston answered this question as well and he did not say you were more evil than an abortionist. I would say you are not more evil because I'm assuming you're saved. Never the less, you are sinning.

Couldn't I make that very claim right back at you? And even more so?
There are only two believers on this thread whom think it is forbidden to celebrate Christmas... you and Jim. The rest if us are rebuking you, why are you dismissing us?

Appealing to the majority proves nothing. It's very possible that the minority (me and Mr. Hilston) are right and the rest are wrong.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Since you don't have the aforementioned view of Romans 14, you are not a hypocrite. Where does this leave us? We have to decide whether or not Paul was serious when he warned the Body of Christ not to subjugate itself to the angelic realm by observing religious holidays. Agree?

OK, and I would state that Paul was not setting up new rules for the Body but that he was stressing that the old rules no longer applied.

I think that you stretch Paul's warning that old rules no longer apply into new rules that do apply in the reverse.

I assert that this stretch in conclusion is in error.

In other words.... when Paul says you shouldn't observe certain days he is saying we no longer need to observe certain days as a work, that dispensation is OVER. He is not saying there is a new law in this dispensation for us in the Body that we cannot celebrate holidays.

And as to...

Ditto. Also, when I'm getting hit from all angles by people of differing views, it's difficult to keep track of who believes what, so sometimes I get people confused. Some people I have to ignore, particularly newbies to a particular discussion, just so I can concentrate on those with whom I've established some groundwork.

I understand completely and I will do my best to take that into consideration.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Christine
Appealing to the majority proves nothing. It's very possible that the minority (me and Mr. Hilston) are right and the rest are wrong.

:sigh: That wasn't my point.

Oh well!

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Okay, I rambled on a bit there...

Ramble on dude!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Jim earlier on this thread you stated....

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.

I would like to explore these "laws of the Mystery". Is the info above a relatively complete reference in your opinion?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK.. so the following is the complete reference for Jim's "Laws of the Mystery"....

Romans 11:25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith —

1Corinthians 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

Ephesians 1:9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself,

Ephesians 3:3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;

Ephesians 5:32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Ephesians 6:19 and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel,

Colossians 1:26 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27 To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: which is Christ in you, the hope of glory

Colossians 2:2 that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, and attaining to all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the knowledge of the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ,

Colossians 4:3 meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains,

1Timothy 3:9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Which of course is an excellent reference for demonstrating that Paul's gospel was not a part of ANY prior dispensation in any way.

But what about these "Laws"? What are the "Laws of the Mystery" Jim? There is nothing about any "Laws of the Mystery" in any those verses you referenced.

Can you outline for me what they are and reference them in some way? We already know about Thou shall not celebrate holidays without feeling guilty. What are some of the other "Laws of the Mystery"? I would like a complete list if possible sort of like the 10 commandments. Do you have anything like that written out? If so could you summarize it and post it here so I could examine it?

Afterall if there are new laws that apply to the Body you would think it might be important for us to be aware of them.

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight
OK, and I would state that Paul was not setting up new rules for the Body but that he was stressing that the old rules no longer applied.

I follow you. What is your opinion about why Paul rebuked Peter publicly for eating with the Jews that came from James?

Originally posted by Knight
I think that you stretch Paul's warning that old rules no longer apply into new rules that do apply in the reverse.

What is your view of why Paul's warning is so stern and why he devoted the entire Galatian epistle to the subject?

Originally posted by Knight
In other words.... when Paul says you shouldn't observe certain days he is saying we no longer need to observe certain days as a work, that dispensation is OVER.

Was Peter suddenly believing that observing Jewish food laws were a work?

Originally posted by Knight
He is not saying there is a new law in this dispensation for us in the Body that we cannot celebrate holidays.

What do you believe Paul is talking about when he equates Jewish ritual with pagan ritual? Why does Paul keep stressing the fact that the Body of seated above the angelic realm (principalities and powers, the elemental spirits, the stoicheia of this kosmos)?

Originally posted by Knight
And as to ... I understand completely and I will do my best to take that into consideration.

Me, too. :thumb:

 

[Gerlad]

...but who's counting?

...but who's counting?

Originally posted by Knight

There are only two believers on this thread whom think it is forbidden to celebrate Christmas... you and Jim. The rest if us are rebuking you, why are you dismissing us?

For the record, let's make it 3!

I can tell you that that I don't celebrate it or any other religious holidays because Paul prohibits such behavior.

There were a few others that answered "No" on the poll, but I obviously can't account for their reasons.


JB

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Re: ...but who's counting?

Re: ...but who's counting?

Originally posted by Gerlad

For the record, let's make it 3!

I can tell you that that I don't celebrate it or any other religious holidays because Paul prohibits such behavior.

There were a few others that answered "No" on the poll, but I obviously can't account for their reasons.


JB

Noted.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

I follow you. What is your opinion about why Paul rebuked Peter publicly for eating with the Jews that came from James?

Because Peter was playing the hypocrite...

Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Peter should have told those of the circumcision the truth instead of fearing them.

You continue...

What is your view of why Paul's warning is so stern and why he devoted the entire Galatian epistle to the subject?

Paul didn't want new believers in the Body being fooled by those that were teaching they needed to perform works.

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

You continue...

Was Peter suddenly believing that observing Jewish food laws were a work?

No, Peter was fearful of telling those of the circumcision that there was a new dispensation and therefore played the hypocrite.

What do you believe Paul is talking about when he equates Jewish ritual with pagan ritual? Why does Paul keep stressing the fact that the Body of seated above the angelic realm (principalities and powers, the elemental spirits, the stoicheia of this kosmos)?

Paul is stressing through all his epistles that in this new dispensation you no longer need to keep the law. Therefore any attempt to keep the law is no different than a pagan ritual.

This isn't to be stretched to mean that any rituals that are NOT viewed as a work are unlawful.

SIDE NOTE: Of course you do realize that I agree that if someone THINKS that they need to perform a ritual as a work then that indeed is wrong.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Knight

If that statement applied in this case you could literally make that same argument for any type of legalistic behavior. Think about it!

I know! That's the problem with legalism, it gets you from both sides. You shouldn't set the rule up in the first place, but once you have you must follow it and sin if you don't. If you believe something is wrong, even if it really isn't, you sin if you do it because you will have become a hypocrite by beleiving one thing and doing the contrary.

You conintue....Who is trying to convince Jim to celebrate Christmas? Nobody that I can think of. The only thing I am trying to convince him of is that it is NOT unlawful to celebrate Christmas if you choose to.

Yeah, just as you should. I did not intend to imply that you were doing anything wrong in my initial post. In fact, I hadn't read hardly anything you had said prior to that post.

Jim wrote an article stating that celebrating Christmas is FORBIDDEN for the Body of Christ. Jim says that celebrating Christmas is unlawful under this dispensation.

Yes, among other things and until he is convinced that his rules amount to legalism he is bound by the chains he has shackled himself with. As it is right now, if Jim or Christine either one celebrated Christmas they would sin by doing so. Not because there is anything wrong with Christmas but because they would be beleiving and saying one thing while doing the contrary. They would be hypocrites, by definition.

That is a far cry from simply choosing not to celebrate Christmas....... and that is the crux of the debate.

I completely agree.

So then which do you allow them? The rebuke of the error? Or the violation of the conscience?

Neither really. The whole point is that once you've placed yourself under law, you are guaranteed to sin. If you've placed youself under law, you're guilty if you do and you're guilty if you don't. The only escape is grace; faith plus nothing.

Again... if violation of the conscience is at issue than literally ANY legalistic behavior could use this excuse.

It's not an excuse, they are guilty either way! The point is not to focus on the behavior itself rather than the message of grace and the error of legalism. Which, as far as I can tell, is exactly what you are doing. Keep it up! :thumb:

Great point, now lets assume you know a fella whom thinks its SINFUL NOT to tithe and that if you DO not tithe you are endanger of hellfire.

Would you avoid rebuking him because you wouldn't want to violate his conscience???? Of course not!!! His conceince is already a violation and therefore your rebuke would be the proper course of action.

I would ask him why he thinks its good to follow the law. He would almost certainly say that tything wasn't part of the law. I would then prove to him that it was. If he agreed that it was then I would show him how we are not to follow the law and that if he does, Christ will profit him nothing. If he agrees, then he may continue to give the same dollar amount he has always given but now without the fear of condemnation or of angering God or whatever it is he was in fear of for having not tythed before. That which is done by faith is done without fear, faith is the very opposite of fear, if you are afraid you are almost certainly under law.
Now, if he does not agree with me and any of these points then he is stuck. He will sin, no matter which way he turns. If he tythes he cheapens God's gift by attempting to pay for His blessing and if he does not tythe he makes himself a hypocrite.

With all due respect Clete that is the most bizarre statement I have ever read of yours.

I'm really shocked by this. It has to be because I'm failing to communicate my point clearly enough. I'll tell you what though, your uneasiness about this makes me think that perhaps I've gotten something wrong. If so, it wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, I'm sure.
If there is a genuine difference here between us, I'll consider it an oportunity for one or the other of us to learn something, perhaps both. Iron sharpens iron!

How will Jim ever get out of his error if he cannot question his faulty rule??

It doesn't make any sense!

I didn't say he can't question his rule. His rule is precisely what he should question. What I'm getting at is simply that Jim will sin, no matter which way he turns until he unlocks the shackles he's placed around his own neck. If he follows the rule he sins because of legalism, if he does not follow the rule he violates his conscience and makes himself a hypocrite. The ultimate catch 22. The only way out is death.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

I know! That's the problem with legalism, it gets you from both sides. You shouldn't set the rule up in the first place, but once you have you must follow it and sin if you don't. If you believe something is wrong, even if it really isn't, you sin if you do it because you will have become a hypocrite by beleiving one thing and doing the contrary.

I think I get what you mean although.... I am not sure how to apply this notion to this case in any practical way.

Jim and Christine are wrongly placing a law over themselves and subsequently placing themselves in bondage. Isn't the only solution to rebuke them and tell them that what they are thinking is in error?

I guess I could see your point better if all of us were trying to force them into celebrating Christmas against their better judgment. In that case, you would be 100% on target.

You continue...

Yes, among other things and until he is convinced that his rules amount to legalism he is bound by the chains he has shackled himself with. As it is right now, if Jim or Christine either one celebrated Christmas they would sin by doing so. Not because there is anything wrong with Christmas but because they would be beleiving and saying one thing while doing the contrary. They would be hypocrites, by definition.

Which is why I am NOT arguing that they should celebrate Christmas but that they are wrong and in error to claim that Christmas is forbidden.

You continue...

I'm really shocked by this. It has to be because I'm failing to communicate my point clearly enough. I'll tell you what though, your uneasiness about this makes me think that perhaps I've gotten something wrong. If so, it wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, I'm sure.
If there is a genuine difference here between us, I'll consider it an oportunity for one or the other of us to learn something, perhaps both. Iron sharpens iron!

I think the misunderstanding is that you seem to be thinking we are trying to force or persuade Jim and Christine into celebrating Christmas. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less if Jim or Christine don't celebrate Christmas. But what I DO care about is that Jim and Christine are preaching to others (with some degree of success i.e., Gerlad) that Christmas is forbidden to the Body of Christ.

This is the essence of legalism and they should repent and recant this silly notion. Not to mention the abortion stuff. :shocked:


You continue...

I didn't say he can't question his rule. His rule is precisely what he should question. What I'm getting at is simply that Jim will sin, no matter which way he turns until he unlocks the shackles he's placed around his own neck. If he follows the rule he sins because of legalism, if he does not follow the rule he violates his conscience and makes himself a hypocrite. The ultimate catch 22. The only way out is death.

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Resting in Him,
Clete

But Jim is already a Christian. He is already a member of the Body and therefore already crucified with Christ. Jim and Christine and Gerlad just need to be rebuked and repent so that they do not mistakenly turn unbelievers away from the gospel by preaching something that is in error and also placing existing believers under a unnecessary yoke.

 

[Hilston]

Knight,

First question: Do you view it as wrong to do works? Or are you implying "works as salvific" are wrong? I'm guessing the latter, and have thus specified in my reply to you below:

Originally posted by Knight
Because Peter was playing the hypocrite ...

As long as he didn't view the food laws as salvific, would he still be a hypocrite?

Originally posted by Knight
Peter should have told those of the circumcision the truth instead of fearing them.

Do you believe those of the circumcision didn't know the truth? Do you believe they were wrong for observing their food laws?

Originally posted by Knight
Paul didn't want new believers in the Body being fooled by those that were teaching they needed to perform works.

What would be wrong with new believers in the Body performing works as long as they didn't do them for salvation?

Was Paul wrong for offering blood sacrifices in the Temple and for circumcising Timotheus?

Originally posted by Knight
... Peter was fearful of telling those of the circumcision that there was a new dispensation and therefore played the hypocrite.

Why do you suppose he would be fearful of that? And why would Paul rebuke him for it?

Originally posted by Knight
Paul is stressing through all his epistles that in this new dispensation you no longer need to keep the law.

But could you keep the law if you wanted, as long as you didn't view it as salvific? And why devote so much to this subject? The Galatians and Colossians already understood salvation by grace. Do you believe Paul was concerned that they were going to forget that truth?

Originally posted by Knight
Therefore any attempt to keep the law is no different than a pagan ritual.

Same question as above: Is it wrong to keep the law if one wanted to, as long as one didn't regard it as salvific?

Originally posted by Knight
This isn't to be stretched to mean that any rituals that are NOT viewed as a work are unlawful.

So would it be OK for me to make blood sacrifices according to the Noahic laws if I wanted?

Originally posted by Knight
SIDE NOTE: Of course you do realize that I agree that if someone THINKS that they need to perform a ritual as a work then that indeed is wrong.

Understood. My bigger question regards those who perform rituals for worship purposes, but not as a salvific work.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Knight,

First question: Do you view it as wrong to do works? Or are you implying "works as salvific" are wrong? I'm guessing the latter, and have thus specified in my reply to you below:

Works profit the member of the Body nothing. But to those that are not in the Body works place them under the law and they may falsely think they are making themselves righteous and send themselves to hell. Therefore it is wrong for those of us in the Body to make ANYONE think works are a necessity.

You continue...

As long as he didn't view the food laws as salvific, would he still be a hypocrite?

We know that Peter knew better.

Acts 10:13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.”

Not only that but..... why would Paul rebuke Peter in the manner in which he did if Peter was just mistaken? Paul certainly wouldn't have said... “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

You continue...

Do you believe those of the circumcision didn't know the truth? Do you believe they were wrong for observing their food laws?

I hate to answer a question with a question but.... don't you believe that the dietary laws even for the circumcision had been repealed in Acts 10?

You continue...

What would be wrong with new believers in the Body performing works as long as they didn't do them for salvation?

Nothing necessarily sinful. (more on this below)

You continue...

Was Paul wrong for offering blood sacrifices in the Temple and for circumcising Timotheus?

No, because at that time there really were to dispensations in action. Paul used wise strategy so that he could get his message out.

You continue...

Why do you suppose he would be fearful of that? And why would Paul rebuke him for it?

It seems Peter was fearful of losing his reputation.

You continue...

But could you keep the law if you wanted, as long as you didn't view it as salvific? And why devote so much to this subject? The Galatians and Colossians already understood salvation by grace. Do you believe Paul was concerned that they were going to forget that truth?

Paul was concerned that they were being persuaded away from that truth.

Paul didn't want a great group of believers being persuaded into believing something other than the correct gospel. That would make them ineffective in spreading the dispensation of uncircumcision AND it would adversely affect their own relationship with Christ. Paul wanted them to enjoy their new found liberty!

So would it be OK for me to make blood sacrifices according to the Noahic laws if I wanted?

As long as you weren't preaching to others that this was the gospel.

Not to mention it would certainly effect your own relationship with Christ as you would be attempting to add to something that you cannot add to (His work on the cross).

Jim... I enjoy your new tone. I can deal with this. :up:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey Jim.... doesn't it strike you as odd that you and I could have this vast difference in theology yet both agree about the audience of Romans 14 which is a tiny, tiny minority position even among Acts 9ers?

Kinda freaky if ya think about it. :freak:

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Knight

Hey Jim.... doesn't it strike you as odd that you and I could have this vast difference in theology yet both agree about the audience of Romans 14 which is a tiny, tiny minority position even among Acts 9ers?

Kinda freaky if ya think about it. :freak:

Could Jim or Knight explain why Romans 14 was not directed to the Body? Yall got me curious. Also, is there other Pauline scripture not intended for us. If so, why. Thanks.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Lucky

Could Jim or Knight explain why Romans 14 was not directed to the Body? Yall got me curious. Also, is there other Pauline scripture not intended for us. If so, why. Thanks.

Do you have a copy of the Plot?

 

[Hilston]

Knight -- yes, quite freaky indeed. :freak:

Lucky, 1Cor 8 (whole chapter) and 1Co 10 (end of the chapter). Also, see the following link:

Why Romans 14 doesn't apply today.

PS: Knight -- I'll answer your above post later on when I have more uninterrupted time to do so.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston
PS: Knight -- I'll answer your above post later on when I have more uninterrupted time to do so.

:up:

 

[Clete]

Knight,

I think my error was in jumping into the middle of a conversation without fully understanding what was being discussed. Although I wasn't that far off base, it is clear that my remarks took on an unintended meaning because of the context of the discussion.
My remarks were not intended to insinuate that you were doing anything other than what you have been doing. I never said that you were attempting to convince Jim or Christine to celebrate in spite of their conscience, although I definitely understand why you got that impression.
As far as I can tell, you and I are in complete agreement. Jim and Christine have erected themselves a new set of commandments which they have no hope of following. And as laws do, they have, and will continue to multiply and become more and more complex as time progresses. Before long, and perhaps already, they will have grown their little 'tree of knowledge and good and evil' to such an extent that they will camp out in its branches and, if human nature is any indication, they will have grown proud of its size and grandeur. Then on judgment day, their great accomplishment will be run through the furnace and will be reduced to nothing. All of their good works with respect to religious ritual (or lack thereof), holiday non-observance, Lord's super (meal) observance, not meeting in a specifically set aside building for church service, etc, etc. will all be burned up. They, themselves, as you pointed out, are saved and will be saved, but all their rules and observances of the same will gain them nothing. They are indeed, wasting their time.

Jim and Christine are wrongly placing a law over themselves and subsequently placing themselves in bondage. Isn't the only solution to rebuke them and tell them that what they are thinking is in error?

Yes indeed, I would never intentionally suggest otherwise.

I guess I could see your point better if all of us were trying to force them into celebrating Christmas against their better judgment. In that case, you would be 100% on target.

Yes, we are in agreement then. It was not my intention to suggest that you were attempting to force them to do anything against their better judgment. I simply was making the statement that one should not do that, that's all.

Which is why I am NOT arguing that they should celebrate Christmas but that they are wrong and in error to claim that Christmas is forbidden.

Indeed! Your reaction should be similar to that of Paul's toward the Galatians and it seems that it has been exactly that.

I think the misunderstanding is that you seem to be thinking we are trying to force or persuade Jim and Christine into celebrating Christmas. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less if Jim or Christine don't celebrate Christmas. But what I DO care about is that Jim and Christine are preaching to others (with some degree of success i.e., Gerlad) that Christmas is forbidden to the Body of Christ.

You are completely right! I never intended to give the impression that I thought you were attempting to persuade Jim to do any such thing. My apologies. I'll try to be clearer next time.

This is the essence of legalism and they should repent and recant this silly notion. Not to mention the abortion stuff. :shocked:

I haven't seen the abortion comments so I can't comment on that but I would agree with you that they are neck deep in legalism. However, I would not say that it was "silly". It is clearly wrong, but there are lots of people who are legalistic who think long and hard about what they believe and why. It seems to me that while I have not found them at all persuasive, the hand full of posts I have read on this thread as well as the articles on Jim's web site are very well thought out and anything but silly. They're wrong, but they clearly didn't just whimsically come up with this stuff off the top of their heads.

But Jim is already a Christian. He is already a member of the Body and therefore already crucified with Christ.

Yes, but they are operating in the flesh. They must crucify their flesh and allow Christ to live His life through them or else they will simply leave this particular brand of legalism and go to straight to another.

Jim and Christine and Gerlad just need to be rebuked and repent so that they do not mistakenly turn unbelievers away from the gospel by preaching something that is in error and also placing existing believers under a unnecessary yoke.

Okay, this might give me a better opportunity to make it clearer what I'm getting at. Saying that they need to repent is one thing but what is it exactly that they need to turn from and more importantly what do they need to turn to? Getting them convinced that it is okay to either celebrate Christmas or not is great but it doesn't address the real problem. The legalism is only a symptom.
I didn't get into this because I frankly figured you had already gotten into it yourself and didn't want to rehash subject matter that had already been covered. I just read a couple of posts and thought it was an interesting issue and impulsively threw in my two cents. Perhaps it would have been better to have kept my thoughts to myself. I managed to stir up much more than I intended to. But I guess if you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound!
The underlying issue is not legalism, it's not false teaching, it's not setting a bad example, it's not anything like that. God is more than able to work around, and in spite of, all of that. The issue is not as much what they are doing as it is why they are doing it. The question is, where are their actions coming from, what is the source of the lives they live?

I would like to ask Jim to give as simple and as foundational an answer as possible to the following question…
Why Jim (or Christine), do you abstain from celebrating Christmas, performing religious rituals, meeting in church buildings, etc.? I'm not looking for "because Paul said so, I know you believe that already. What I want to know is what you intend to gain by following these rules; what is your motivation?
Also, would you feel guilty if you did celebrate Christmas or did any of the several things that you feel are forbidden? If so (which seems obvious), why? Why are they wrong?

If these questions have already been answered just direct me to the posts and I'll respond accordingly.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Jim, I'm sorry that I haven't responded to your other posts yet.
This conversation took on an importance that I felt trumped the others considering the limited amount of time I've had these last couple of days.
I will respond to the others as time allows, I promise. Thanks again for being patient with me!