Was Christmas originally a pagan holiday? Nope.

[Dr.3D]

Galatians 4:10 You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. ([N]RSV)

Will we ever learn?

 

[fisharmor]

Is the 25th of December mentioned in the Eastern Orthodox catechism?

We don't draw lines in the sand and say "this is the bare minimum of the Christian faith that we are shooting for". Orthodoxy is kind of an all-or-nothing deal. I think that is probably one reason there is no such thing as an official catechism.

That was quite frustrating to me for many years. Even more frustrating was how when I asked a seemingly simple question, the answers I got went in a dozen different directions and never got to a direct answer.

You cannot screw Orthodoxy down to the floorboards. It is not a book you read. It is not a class you take. It is a life, your life, in relationship with Christ.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

We don't draw lines in the sand and say "this is the bare minimum of the Christian faith that we are shooting for". Orthodoxy is kind of an all-or-nothing deal. I think that is probably one reason there is no such thing as an official catechism.

That was quite frustrating to me for many years. Even more frustrating was how when I asked a seemingly simple question, the answers I got went in a dozen different directions and never got to a direct answer.

You cannot screw Orthodoxy down to the floorboards. It is not a book you read. It is not a class you take. It is a life, your life, in relationship with Christ.

+rep

 

[Sola_Fide]

You cannot screw Orthodoxy down to the floorboards. It is not a book you read. It is not a class you take. It is a life, your life, in relationship with Christ.

Where does the Bible ever say "have a relationship with Christ"?

 

[erowe1]

We don't draw lines in the sand and say "this is the bare minimum of the Christian faith that we are shooting for". Orthodoxy is kind of an all-or-nothing deal. I think that is probably one reason there is no such thing as an official catechism.

That was quite frustrating to me for many years. Even more frustrating was how when I asked a seemingly simple question, the answers I got went in a dozen different directions and never got to a direct answer.

You cannot screw Orthodoxy down to the floorboards. It is not a book you read. It is not a class you take. It is a life, your life, in relationship with Christ.

Do you believe that the Gospel proclaimed by the apostles demanded that people accept all of what one must accept to be Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Jamesiv1]

If life is a gift, then every day is Christmas.

 

[jmdrake]

We don't draw lines in the sand and say "this is the bare minimum of the Christian faith that we are shooting for". Orthodoxy is kind of an all-or-nothing deal. I think that is probably one reason there is no such thing as an official catechism.

That was quite frustrating to me for many years. Even more frustrating was how when I asked a seemingly simple question, the answers I got went in a dozen different directions and never got to a direct answer.

You cannot screw Orthodoxy down to the floorboards. It is not a book you read. It is not a class you take. It is a life, your life, in relationship with Christ.

Yeah...except Jesus never said "Remember My birthday." He and the actual early church never even said when His birthday was. What's being called the "early church" is really the "Church several centuries later making undocumented declarations about the early church." The "proof" that seemingly pagan elements in Christianity predated Constantine is based on documents dated well after Constantine. Ummmm....okay. Color me unimpressed.

 

[jmdrake]

//

 

[RJB]

Where does the Bible ever say "have a relationship with Christ"?

When we are told to pray to God ceaselessly by God who calls us his "brothers and sisters," and the Church is called his bride, we are in a relationship.

 

[RJB]

+rep

Yeah. One of the best summations of my faith.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When we are told to pray to God ceaselessly by God who calls us his "brothers and sisters," and the Church is called his bride, we are in a relationship.

That's relational language. But where in the Bible is the gospel described as "have a relationship with Jesus"? The answer is its not. The gospel is described in the first 8 or 9 chapters of Romans very extensively, and there is no mention of relationship. There is mention of law, accounting, imputation, etc....not relationship.

"Have a relationship" is a popular false gospel. It's not Biblical. You can always spot a false gospel because it doesn't describe salvation in the terms the Bible describes it.

 

[RJB]

That's relational language. But where in the Bible is the gospel described as "have a relationship with Jesus"? The answer is its not. The gospel is described in the first 8 or 9 chapters of Romans very extensively, and there is no mention of relationship. There is mention of law, accounting, imputation, etc....not relationship.

"Have a relationship" is a popular false gospel. It's not Biblical. You can always spot a false gospel because it doesn't describe salvation in the terms the Bible describes it.

I understand where you're coming from, but where did Fisharmor mention salvation in his post?

That's where we talk two different languages and it is the reason you don't understand us. Everything to you is a formula about what is salvation and what isn't. That's because your religion is based on it's relation and reactionary rebellion to the legalism of Roman Catholicism.

Orthodoxy doesn't worry about the salvic axioms of the west (Protestant or Catholic.) His victory over death has won that. We live our lives in Him and trust in Him. Our goal is to get closer to him to share in His divinty.

Read Fish's post again.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's relational language. But where in the Bible is the gospel described as "have a relationship with Jesus"? The answer is its not. The gospel is described in the first 8 or 9 chapters of Romans very extensively, and there is no mention of relationship. There is mention of law, accounting, imputation, etc....not relationship.

"Have a relationship" is a popular false gospel. It's not Biblical. You can always spot a false gospel because it doesn't describe salvation in the terms the Bible describes it.

By this reasoning, Paul taught a false Gospel. But there are plenty of heterodox churches (especially Evangelicals, in my experience) that teach it incorrectly, which is probably what you're thinking of.

 

[fisharmor]

Yeah. One of the best summations of my faith.

What I left out of our faith, which needs to be stated again, apparently, is that our faith is also much more than our plan to get our get-out-of-hell-free card.

ETA beat me to it, RJB

 

[dusman]

That's relational language. But where in the Bible is the gospel described as "have a relationship with Jesus"? The answer is its not. The gospel is described in the first 8 or 9 chapters of Romans very extensively, and there is no mention of relationship. There is mention of law, accounting, imputation, etc....not relationship.

"Have a relationship" is a popular false gospel. It's not Biblical. You can always spot a false gospel because it doesn't describe salvation in the terms the Bible describes it.

Eh, I don't typically find issue with your strictness to gospel and generally appreciate it. However, in regards to the English language and the definition of relationship... I'd say it's a silly argument of semantics to find issue with "to have a relationship with Jesus" and imply it is something absolutely opposed to your strict interpretation of gospel. I might describe you as having a strict relationship with Jesus and the gospel and it would not be incorrect in its description, unless given some other quality other than what it implies.

Perhaps you can explain, in your opinion, how you determine it to be false gospel?

 

[jmdrake]

Eh, I don't typically find issue with your strictness to gospel and generally appreciate it. However, in regards to the English language and the definition of relationship... I'd say it's a silly argument of semantics to find issue with "to have a relationship with Jesus" and imply it is something absolutely opposed to your strict interpretation of gospel. I might describe you as having a strict relationship with Jesus and the gospel and it would not be incorrect in its description, unless given some other quality other than what it implies.

Perhaps you can explain, in your opinion, how you determine it to be false gospel?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dusman again.

 

[jmdrake]

Where does the Bible ever say "have a relationship with Christ"?

That's relational language. But where in the Bible is the gospel described as "have a relationship with Jesus"?

Do you realize that you changed your question after you were proven wrong?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Do you realize that you changed your question after you were proven wrong?

Probably not.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Do you realize that you changed your question after you were proven wrong?

No I wasn't proven wrong. Unless you can do it. Where in the Bible is the gospel described as "have a relationship with Christ"?

 

[Christian Liberty]

3 things:

1. The Temple had not been destroyed yet when Paul spoke on this point, see a previous point I made.
2. Do you think Paul's words here are cause to violate the 4th commandment? I've heard this from many "modern Christians".
3. Romans 14:7 takes precedence when dealing with the matter of people using the OT holy days as cause for schism, regardless of whether they acknowledge the right of others not to observe them.

I should also add that I don't think that the magistrate should be breaking into anyone's houses to check for idols. However, that does not change the fact that no one should be encouraged to commit idolatry, even if in private.

I know that Romans 14:5 is not giving the right to break the sabbath, I argued this point to Sola_Fide a couple weeks ago I believe. The sabbath has been changed to Sunday and remains commanded. I can understand you saying not to observe any day that interferes with the sabbath.

I don't see how Romans 14:7 clearly relates at all. But aside from that, I do not understand how it is INHERENTLY divisive to celebrate the OT festival days. I agree that it is often used as a manner of division but it seems like Paul here is allowing it (by individuals, not the church) unless you seek to convince others to celebrate them or divide from those who do not celebrate.

The temple point is interesting. I have seen Brian Schwertley make the same point (in his article against Christmas) and I still don't see how its relevant. So in 69 AD Paul would have said "be convinced in your own mind" but in 71 AD Paul would have said "you are in sin if you celebrate this?" I find that odd to say the least.