Was Christmas originally a pagan holiday? Nope.

[jmdrake]

I'm sorry.... where is this in Scripture, exactly?
Let me clarify: I'm looking for where in Scripture you got the idea that the account-giving has anything at all to do with escaping judgment.

LOL. Good one. Sola_Fide just makes stuff up as he goes along.

 

[jmdrake]

No it is not the same by any means. There is no where in the Bible where people are admonished to have a relationship with Jesus. Paul describes the gospel in the first 8 chapters of Romans, and this language is never used.

By the way, do you know what ginosko means when Jesus used it there? Where else is ginosko used in the New Testament, and what does it mean when it is used?

You apparently do not.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/ginosko.html

Definition
to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
to become known
to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
to understand
to know
Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
to become acquainted with, to know

Based on the context, anyone with half a brain would use the definition I have in bold. Clearly Jesus has a knowledge of everyone. Clearly the context isn't talking about sex. So acquaintance is the most logical response. Of course being illogical on top of being dishonest means you will pick a definition that makes no sense. You already conceded that there is relational knowledge in the Bible then you doubled back and tried to pretend that you didn't.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Ter, you seem to have brought up this entire thread just to wallow in your own beliefs (SELF).

that sounds about right

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Sola, what happens when you pray? The reason I ask that is your version sounds very much like the way Muslims interact about Allah (who is not real). There is no relationship in this life.

Jehovah God is real. He has a heart that is touched by our grief. His arm is not too short that it cannot save. He hears our prayers. He helps us in our weaknesses. He chastens. We are carved on the palms of his hands. Emmanuel means God with us. How is that not relationship?

So Allah (the muslims God) isnt real but your God Jehovah is real.. I see....

And somebody Muslim would say their God is real and your God is not real.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So Allah (the muslims God) isnt real but your God Jehovah is real.. I see....

And somebody Muslim would say their God is real and your God is not real.

Allah is the word that all arabic speaking people use. "Quduson Allah" is a common Antiochian Christian hymn, translated as "Holy God" and in liturgical context refers specifically to the God of the New Testament that Christians worship.

Quduson Allah, Quduson ul kawi
Quduson ul ladih
Laya murtur hannah

Holy God, Holy Mighty
Holy, Immortal
Have mercy on us.

 

[fisharmor]

Allah is the word that all arabic speaking people use. "Quduson Allah" is a common Antiochian Christian hymn, translated as "Holy God" and in liturgical context refers specifically to the God of the New Testament that Christians worship.

Quduson Allah, Quduson ul kawi
Quduson ul ladih
Laya murtur hannah

Holy God, Holy Mighty
Holy, Immortal
Have mercy on us.

Cool. I found this video which I won't embed because it contains images of Christ and I know there are still some who can't deal with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1KA9alS-Vo
They sing the Arabic in the second verse sung by the choir at about the 1 minute mark.
I was happy to hear the Arabic melody, too. It's my favorite score for the Trisagion so far. Though I think these folks sing it too slowly.

We had a hierarchical service yesterday, which was my first, but our Trisagion didn't take nearly this long. Either that or I'm now completely oblivious to the passage of time during a liturgy at this point. Which is entirely possible.

Edit: this one is both more uptempo and the lyrics are printed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tabwKjrpdws

 

[robert68]

From the OP:

Link
by William J. Tighe

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. Almost no one minds, except for a few groups on the fringes of American Evangelicalism, who seem to think that this makes Christmas itself a pagan festival. But it is perhaps interesting to know that the choice of December 25th is the result of attempts among the earliest Christians to figure out the date of Jesus’ birth based on calendrical calculations that had nothing to do with pagan festivals.

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

A Mistake

From the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

For the first four centuries of Christian history the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord was not a separate Church feast. It was celebrated with Epiphany in one great feast of God's appearance on earth in the form of the human Messiah of Israel. The celebration of the Nativity began to be celebrated on December 25 to offset the pagan festival of the "Invincible Sun" that occurred on that specific day. The Church consciously established it in an attempt to defeat the false religion of the heathens.

The same quote as above is at the websites of both The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America and the Orthodox Church in America.

 

[TER]

From the OP:



From the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:


The same quote as above is at the websites of both The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America and The Orthodox Church in America.

It is true that unfortunately in the West, this particular teaching has infiltrated and been propagated by certain recent Orthodox Christian writers. However, if one studies the historical records and patristic evidence available (which have been layed out in multiple posts in this thread), the opposite is true, namely that celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25th came before Aurelius instituted Saturnlia (which was actually celebrated from Dec 17-22 (not Dec 25th) as well as when the later emporer Julian the Apostate named December 25th a Roman pagan holiday. Indeed, it appears that the Roman officials were trying to overshadow a well established Christian feast.

 

[TER]

From link below,

St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople at the end of the fourth century wrote: "On this day also the Birthday of Christ was lately fixed at Rome in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, the Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call this (December 25th), the Birthday of the Invincible One; but who is so invincible as the Lord? They call it the Birthday of the Solar Disk, but Christ is the Sun of Righteousness."

and many other links.

Hi, I was wondering whether you can help me find which writing of St. John Chrysostom's this is in. I have found this quote often quoted today while trying to find it's source (usually in anti-Christian blogs), and there has not been one reference or footnote to suggest where it is from, which is odd since St. John Chrysostom's Nativity homily is well circulated and does not state the quote abov. What I have read from the writings of St. John Chrysostom is that the Dec 25th date for the Nativity of Christ is from ancient in the West and had been thoroughly vetted and investigated to confirm it's authenticity. If you can find the source of your quote above, I would be greatly interested to read the context it was in (if, in fact, it is an actual quote of St. John). Thanks!

 

[euphemia]

I hope you didn't miss the point, hb, about the sanitary expressions we get from Sola Fide. It is very similar to how Muslims worship the Allah of Mohammed's writing. There is never any relationship, just a lot of deal making. If I do this, Allah will have seven virgins for me in heaven. <--- Totally not the truth. At no point did Mohammed's Allah ever come to earth to sacrifice himself for the redemption of mankind. What Mohammed did was hijack the OT law and create a religion and system of government that makes him the one who decides.

Jehovah is personal. Jesus is personal. The Holy Spirit is personal. Emmanuel. God with us.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I hope you didn't miss the point, hb, about the sanitary expressions we get from Sola Fide. It is very similar to how Muslims worship the Allah of Mohammed's writing. There is never any relationship, just a lot of deal making. If I do this, Allah will have seven virgins for me in heaven. <--- Totally not the truth. At no point did Mohammed's Allah ever come to earth to sacrifice himself for the redemption of mankind. What Mohammed did was hijack the OT law and create a religion and system of government that makes him the one who decides.

Jehovah is personal. Jesus is personal. The Holy Spirit is personal. Emmanuel. God with us.

Yes absolutely. To deny the personal or experiential realities of the Chistians faith would be erroneous. There are those aspects.

But what I'm saying is that Paul, who describes the gospel in great detail, never uses the language of "have a relationship with Jesus". He uses the concepts of law, accounting, transaction, exchange, imputation, business, etc.

If you want to be Biblical, if you want to express and communicate the gospel the way the apostles did, you won'tuse the language of "relationship".

If you are trying to deny logic and propositions, and relegate Christianity to existentialism, then you've denied the gospel altogether.

 

[erowe1]

Yes absolutely. To deny the personal or experiential realities of the Chistians faith would be erroneous. There are those aspects.

But what I'm saying is that Paul, who describes the gospel in great detail, never uses the language of "have a relationship with Jesus". He uses the concepts of law, accounting, transaction, exchange, imputation, business, etc.

If you want to be Biblical, if you want to express and communicate the gospel the way the apostles did, you won'tuse the language of "relationship".

If you are trying to deny logic and propositions, and relegate Christianity to existentialism, then you've denied the gospel altogether.

Paul also uses the words reconciliation, adoption, and love for salvation.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Paul also uses the words reconciliation, adoption, and love for salvation.

I'm not denying that there are those relational aspects to salvation. But what modern false religion does is to ignore law, imputation, atonement because it asserts Arminianism. It is a denial of the gospel, and their language betrays it.

Where are the concepts of the first 8 chapters of the book of Romans in modern religion? It's completely absent, because it's a different gospel.

 

[TER]

Personhood implies relationship between persons. That is, ontologically, a person does not exist if it is an individual alone, but rather only inn communion with an other. Even God exists in this reductionist sense, being trinitarian. God is not one person, but three. Likewise, man made in His image, is not a true person outside of the personal relationship with God and with neighbor- also a trinitarian reductionist of personhood.

A monumental contemporary book which goes deep into this idea and which draws heavily from the Cappadocians and other Patristic writers is John Zizioulas' Being as Communion. A very heady theological book, requiring to be read slowly and at times re-read to understand it's great depths, but full of great morsels of knowledge and wisdom which I think every serious student of Christianity should read.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Personhood implies relationship between persons. That is, ontologically, a person does not exist if it is an individual alone, but rather only inn communion with an other. Even God exists in this reductionist sense, being trinitarian. God is not one person, but three. Likewise, man made in His image, is not a true person outside of the personal relationship with God and with neighbor- also a trinitarian reductionist of personhood.

A monumental contemporary book which goes deep into this idea and which draws heavily from the Cappadocians and other Patristic writers is John Zizioulas' Being as Communion. A very heady theological book, requiring to be read slowly and at times re-read to understand it's great depths, but full of great morsels of knowledge and wisdom which I think every serious student of Christianity should read.

TER, you are a person that denies the concepts of law, imputation and accounting spoken of by Paul. They are completely and intentionally absent from your theology.

 

[TER]

TER, you are a person that denies the concepts of law, imputation and accounting spoken of by Paul. They are completely and intentionally absent from your theology.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you like to discuss the OP? If not, please start a new thread. Thanks!

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you like to discuss the OP? If not, please start a new thread. Thanks!

No, I don't want to start a new thread, and I think the suggestion to do so is ridiculous. Why are the political threads on this forum free flowing, yet the "religious" threads not? It's completely ridiculous.

The free flowing conversation is happening right now in this thread so that is where I'm posting.

 

[euphemia]

Sola, I get so tired of the constant derailing of every thread. Personhood is important here. We understand how and why. Part of the why is Who, and for whom. God's demand for righteousness was matched with love when Jesus took on our sin and died on the cross for the sin we inherited from Adam.

Just once in a while, please let these threads just pass on by without interrupting people who enjoy talking about something they love and about Someone whom they all love.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sola, I get so tired of the constant derailing of every thread. Personhood is important here. We understand how and why. Part of the why is Who, and for whom. God's demand for righteousness was matched with love when Jesus took on our sin and died on the cross for the sin we inherited from Adam.

Just once in a while, please let these threads just pass on by without interrupting people who enjoy talking about something they love and about Someone whom they all love.

Jesus took whose sin?

 

[euphemia]

He, who knew no sin, became sin to satisfy God's demand for a righteous sacrifice. Even yours, if you believe that.