Was Christmas originally a pagan holiday? Nope.

[erowe1]

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

When did the Sabbath change to Sunday?

 

[hells_unicorn]

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.

If it were the case that somebody was celebrating an OT holy day in private, they wouldn't be celebrating it properly given that they were never private holy days. Keeping a holy day is, by very definition, not an individualistic occurrence. If someone is keeping it within the family, then somebody is binding the consciences of their family to keep that day. If all are in agreement, they most likely got it from someone else who attached some sort of religious significance to said day, hence we are back to the matter of false worship.

Regarding the matter of the temple: All of the church instituted holidays (Christmas, Easter, et cetera) are based on a typical view of the Christian religion. The entire Roman Advent Calendar is based on the idea that we need to ritualistically reenact the Gospel every year in order to receive the conflated justifying/sanctifying grace of Christ's expiatory sacrifice. Christmas and Easter, along with several other sanctioned days, mirror this practice, and also mirror the OT ceremonial holy day system. This is why the Reformed accused Rome of Semi-Pelagianism, since they attached an entire yearly works cycle in worship to salvation. From what I understand, the EOC doesn't take it this far, and have instead retained typical worship practices due to their presence in the Apostolic Church.

I'm sure that some of these holidays have an earlier root than Roman attempts to co-opt certain pagan practices in order to win converts, and I'm sure it's probably rooted in entrenched typical worship practices that certain followers of the apostles imported from the old Hebrew system. There was never a synod or council condemning the observance of New Testament themed typical holy days until the Reformation, and I would argue that the abolishing of these days became necessary because they had become a massive stumbling block for the church, particularly because of the superstitions attached to them.

Brian Schwertley's point about Christmas in light of the destruction of the temple relates to the typical character of Christmas, which at its heart is a re-appropriation of an abrogated ceremonial concept of looking through a glass darkly back through history despite the light being clearly present. Rather than it being a denial that Christ has come like celebrating Passover or reincorporating ceremonial Temple worship practices, it denies that Christ's sacrifice had a full sufficiency at it's particularly point and time and therefore must be remembered through continual reenactment. I know most who observe Christmas don't intend it this way, but when truly facing the ramifications of it, it's at best a vain exercise and a waste of time that would be better spent on teaching or studying God's Word.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If it were the case that somebody was celebrating an OT holy day in private, they wouldn't be celebrating it properly given that they were never private holy days. Keeping a holy day is, by very definition, not an individualistic occurrence. If someone is keeping it within the family, then somebody is binding the consciences of their family to keep that day. If all are in agreement, they most likely got it from someone else who attached some sort of religious significance to said day, hence we are back to the matter of false worship.

Regarding the matter of the temple: All of the church instituted holidays (Christmas, Easter, et cetera) are based on a typical view of the Christian religion. The entire Roman Advent Calendar is based on the idea that we need to ritualistically reenact the Gospel every year in order to receive the conflated justifying/sanctifying grace of Christ's expiatory sacrifice. Christmas and Easter, along with several other sanctioned days, mirror this practice, and also mirror the OT ceremonial holy day system. This is why the Reformed accused Rome of Semi-Pelagianism, since they attached an entire yearly works cycle in worship to salvation. From what I understand, the EOC doesn't take it this far, and have instead retained typical worship practices due to their presence in the Apostolic Church.

I'm sure that some of these holidays have an earlier root than Roman attempts to co-opt certain pagan practices in order to win converts, and I'm sure it's probably rooted in entrenched typical worship practices that certain followers of the apostles imported from the old Hebrew system. There was never a synod or council condemning the observance of New Testament themed typical holy days until the Reformation, and I would argue that the abolishing of these days became necessary because they had become a massive stumbling block for the church, particularly because of the superstitions attached to them.

Brian Schwertley's point about Christmas in light of the destruction of the temple relates to the typical character of Christmas, which at its heart is a re-appropriation of an abrogated ceremonial concept of looking through a glass darkly back through history despite the light being clearly present. Rather than it being a denial that Christ has come like celebrating Passover or reincorporating ceremonial Temple worship practices, it denies that Christ's sacrifice had a full sufficiency at it's particularly point and time and therefore must be remembered through continual reenactment. I know most who observe Christmas don't intend it this way, but when truly facing the ramifications of it, it's at best a vain exercise and a waste of time that would be better spent on teaching or studying God's Word.

Is it a waste of time to take time on Dec. 25 to study the birth of Christ? Because that fundamentally, when stripped of the Romanist superstitution and the irrelevant secular stuff, isn't that basically what the holiday is? Or what a "Refomed" version of the holiday would be? (A day to reflect on Christ's birth which would primarily entail studying it?)

 

[TER]

We celebrate Christ's birth in the world because of the love we have for Him and for one another. This is the reason why the Church celebrates Christmas. This is how the Feast developed.

This love for Christ is the love of the Holy Spirit, and this is the reason why the Churches which spoke different tongues and spread a long distance of travel away adopted this Feast.

The mission of the Church as commissioned by Christ was to go baptize the nations, and starting with the Twelve Apostles and then the other Apostoles God has sent out through every century since. Within this communion of churches tracing back to the first Patriarchates which existed, we find in every century this Church filled with great and holy saints, - men and women with the charismas and gifts of the very Holy Spirit of God. Beloved of the Triune God. These are saints who overtook even the earlier Prophets, becoming Prophets in their own right, in knowledge of Christ Jesus, and according to the grace and kindness of our Father in Heaven.

These saints shared a common love and zeal for Christ, and seriousness and obedience to the mission commissioned upon the Church by the Lord.

And that is why the Church of Christ has a communion of great and holy Saints of God from now until the beginning, not hidden under a bushel or a table, but known and revered, by the faithful members of the Church through every century. These Saints are as lighthouses, pointing to others the safe way, being a hope and aid in the night and the difficult days in this life. These Saints are the very salt of the earth, by whose prayers preserve the world and indeed all of creation. This, by the power of the Holy Spirit, from the shared love, spirit and faith between eachother in God.

For in this the Church is realized for what it is - a Church. The Church finds it fullness in what has always been the very essence of its ontology, which is a communion of baptized members of His Body sharing in love and joyful celebration of God. Indeed, in communion through His life-giving Body and Blood, which He has given for the life of the world, which He instituted to His Disciples in order to feed His flock.

Communion is personal. It is in fact the most personal and intimate relationship a person can have. But it is not only personal. Indeed, it finds its cosmic fullness and divine experience when we the faithful come together, in the image of the Trinity, to offer prayer, thanksgiving and worship, proclaiming: Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

The feasts of the Church arose because the people wanted to share this joy with the world, and spread the gospel with their neighbors, near and far.

Do not allow the degradation of Christmas by the secular, nihilistic, materialistic, relativistic, individualistic, God-hating culture we live in now cloud you into thinking there has never been a good and God-pleasing way. Nor that it cannot be found now.

There always has been an orthodox way, for there always existed those who have righteously defended the faith of the Apostles and the teachings of Christ. These true elect of God who have made lasting impressions in the world by their holiness and true spiritual piety and humbleness. Saints who worked miracles by the grace of God, and whose great acts of self-giving and self-sacrifice have been models by which we should live by.

Within this community of ancient churches, there was always been a communion of one Church from the beginning. It is this Church in which we find through the centuries the witness of the Christian faith. This is the Church which has survived and endured from the beginning, which can be traced through history and every epoch and era to arrive at the Apostles of Christ and the Upper Room on Holy Pentecost. A Church still inhabiting the earliest cities and seats of the Apostles and preserving and defending the ancient artifacts, manuscripts, and holiest sites which exist in this world.

Through every political system and cultural tradition, the Church has overcome. Suffering the greatest persecutions and with world's greatest number of martyrs, the Church has survived. Partaking of One Body and Blood, with all the faithful who ever lived, the Church exists as a Church, together celebrating the miraculous and wonderous birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Not because it is necessary, but because it is soul-lifting and inspiring.

These are how the feasts developed. To celebrate the love the Church has for God and for one another.

 

[Sola_Fide]

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.

Oh really? Where did Paul describe the gospel as "have a relationship with Jesus"? Chapter and verse please. Paul describes the gospel in detail in the book of Romans. Where is that language or concept ever used by him?

 

[Sola_Fide]

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.

Where do you get that from the Bible?

 

[TER]

Was Jesus Really Born at THAT Place in Bethlehem?

Link

by STEVE RAY on MAY 17, 2015


Today we are having Mass at Gethsemane on the western slope of the Mount of Olives. How do we know this is really Gethsemane?

And yesterday we had Mass at Tomb of Christ in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Really? How do we know?

Two days ago we venerated the place Jesus was born in Bethlehem and had Mass in the Cave of the Shepherds.

It is often asked: how do we know these are the real sites where Jesus and Mary lived and walked. The earliest Christians realized the importance of these sites and immediately viewed them as sites to be remembered and venerated. Small chapels were built and pilgrims came from around the world to visit these spots and to pray.

When Christianity became legalized, churches were built on these sites. Tradition, archaeology and the ancient witness confirms the authenticity of the sites. Below is a few examples relating to Bethlehem.

In a very enlightening side note, Bethlehem was mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, written in ad 370: “. . . Since that birth [of Jesus], men come from the ends of the earth to see the manger, and the site of the shed.”

The early Christians remembered and preserved the location and pilgrims like you visited even in the first centuries. Emperor Hadrian built pagan shrines over the holy places in 135 AD. He thought the memory of the sites and associated faith would be obliterated forever. But then Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity. His mother St. Queen Helena went to Israel, asked the locals where Jesus was born, where he was crucified…

They pointed to the shrines and showed her what they all still remembered well. Queen Helena knocked down the pagan shrines and what did she find? The remains of early Christian veneration. She built a huge church over the place of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, another over the place of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem and a large church over the cave on the Mount of Olives where Jesus ascended into heaven.

There is a saying, “The water is cooler and clearer the nearer you get to the source.” Many of the Fathers of the Church – very close to the events mentioned in the Bible – speak with great certainty about the sites in the Holy Land.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “The cave-stable is mentioned by Justin Martyr, Origen, and Jerome. After the Romans conquered Bethlehem anew (AD 135) the site of the Nativity was desecrated, probably under Hadrian (117–138; cf. Jerome Epistle 58.3). Jerome lived for thirty-three years in Bethlehem (AD 387–420). Here he helped found and direct pilgrim hospices, convents for women, and a monastery.”

The Tyndale Bible Dictionary says, “The birth of Jesus possibly took place in a cave in the rocks outside the town. The early Christian writer Justin Martyr 9100–165) thought so, as did Origen (c. 185–254) some years later. Origen frequently resided in the Holy Land and wrote, ‘In Bethlehem you are shown the cave where he was born, and within the cave the manger where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes.’


Emperor Constantine and his mother Queen Helena

“Jerome later described the grotto over which the Emperor Constantine had built a basilica. In excavations in 1934–35, evidence indicated a second period of building in the reign of Justinian (ad 527–565), when Constantine’s basilica was extended beyond its original proportions. Steps lead down to the grotto, the rectangular shape of which suggests that Constantine’s builders reshaped the original. But there is no description of the grotto prior to the construction of Constantine’s basilica.”

These places were remembered! We’ve known their locations for two thousand years.

 

[TER]

We’re all familiar with the image of three men on camels, traveling trackless sand dunes by starlight: “Field and fountain, moor and mountain / Following yonder star.” But how accurate are our Hallmark greeting cards?

Our modern account of three wise men dates back to the sixth century, and the three or more names vary considerably among the legends. Among the Latins, from the seventh century, we find variants of the names, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar. The Syrians have Larvandad, Hormisdas, Gushnasaph; the Armenians, Kagba, Badadilma and Badadakharida. The fanciful third-century Syriac Revelation of the Magi names twelve Magi.

St. Matthew doesn’t define Magi for us. But the word was old when he used it. Matthew’s Greek word μάγοι comes from Persian maguŝ. The Magi were the priestly caste of the Zoroastrian faith, which, before Islam, was the national religion of Persia — and remains so today among Parsis outside Iran. In the Eastern Christian churches, the ancient troparion [festal hymn] for the Nativity of Christ is:

Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, dawned upon the world the light of knowledge; for by it, those who worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee, the Sun of Righteousness, and to know Thee, the Dayspring from on high. O Lord, glory be to Thee.​

When those led by Nehemiah and Ezra returned to Jerusalem., a significant, influential Jewish community remained behind in Babylon. Governed by princes of the line of David, this community prospered in Persian Mesopotamia; nearly a thousand years after many exiles returned to Palestine, the Babylonian Jewish community was still flourishing, and produced the important Babylonian Talmud.

Jewish scholars have never been shy about practicing and discussing their distinctive faith, and it was during the Babylonian captivity that the fierce, exclusive monotheism of later Judaism was forged. While Jews in first-century Alexandria were interacting with Hellenic thinkers, what kind of dialogue were their contemporaries in Babylon and Persepolis getting up to with Parsi philosophers? If nothing else, the strictness of Jewish dietary, funeral and household laws ensured that food merchants, house builders, and animal vendors would all be learning how to sell to the significant Jewish demographic. And the Jews’ monotheism, in contrast to the Parsis’ dualism, must have made for fascinating debates.

To those who accept the scriptural book of Daniel at face value, the prophet was for a time in a position of authority over the Magi class (Dan. 2:48) and might well have have contributed some specifically Messianic expectations to their tradition.

Meanwhile Messianic expectation was growing in the centuries nearer the time of Christ — especially among nonconformist Jewish communities like Qumran, who, like the Persians, awaited a last great war between sons of light and darkness. And at the same time the Parsis had their own prophecies of a coming savior, Saoshyant, who was to be born of the virgin they called Eredat-fedhri. If the Magi learned – through divination, astrology, or divine revelation – that the Savior was about to be born in the far west, might they have hoped the Jews in Judaea, who also expected a Savior, would know where He’d been born?

How about the Star? Every year, around Christmas, reports appear in the papers or on television which claim to give an astronomical explanation of the Star of Bethlehem: It was a comet, or a supernova, or a reading in an astrological horoscope. These speculations miss the early Christian understanding of the Star that led the magi. In the fourth-century, Saint John Chrysostom noted the impossibility of an actual star leading anybody to the Child:

You know that a spot of such small dimensions, being only as much as a shed would occupy, or rather as much as the body of a little infant would take up, could not possibly be marked out by a star… the moon, which being so far superior to the stars, seems to all that dwell in the world to be near to each and every one of them. How then, tell me, did the star point out a spot so confined, just the space of a manger and shed, unless it left that height and came down, and stood over the very head of the young child?​

Chrysostom insists the magi had to have been following a divinely-provided guide, a manifestation like the pillar of fire that led Israel through the desert. Many other teachers from Origen to St Gregory of Nyssa link the star to Balaam’s prophecy and insist the star was a revelation of Christ himself.

What about the camels? Can’t we at least keep them? The camel had of course been domesticated millennia before, but Persian VIPs didn’t need to ride those nasty, vicious, stinky, ungainly animals; the Persians’ pride was their horses. At the battle of Carrhae it was Persian horsemen that routed the Roman army. What we know today as Arabian horses only developed in large numbers when the conversion of the Persians to Islam in the 7th century AD brought knowledge of horse breeding to the Bedouin.

The trip from Persepolis to Bethlehem is just over 1,000 miles as the crow flies; more than 1200 miles via Aleppo and Palmyra to Judea; at least a few months travel, even over the excellent Roman roads. Our band of Parsi priests is not about to travel that distance alone, or across a trackless waste; a journey of this length for men of importance meant hiring a caravan for protection, provisions, and negotiating lodging on the way. Caravans regularly traveled the long-established trade routes of the Silk Road through Hellenized Mesopotamia and Syria, to the cities of Roman Judaea and the Mediterranean.

So picture a significant caravan with guards, carters, merchants and fellow-travelers accompanying a delegation of Parsi priests along the west end of the ancient Silk Road, finally arriving after months of travel in Caesarea, at the court of the Edomite King Herod, whom the Romans had appointed King of the Jews.

And imagine Herod’s consternation when this august delegation seeks audience with him and – disregarding his own son and heir Antipas – asks him: “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?”

 

[hells_unicorn]

Where do you get that from the Bible?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Christianity&p=6007929&viewfull=1#post6007929

The tract that I posted on another thread regarding the issue of both The Lord's Day being the 1st day of the week and also The Lord's Day being the NT Sabbath obligation under the 4th commandment should answer this question.

And for those who are still cleaving to this notion that The Lord's Day is not the 1st day of the week, considering that the 1st day was the day of Christ's resurrection, all who hold to the judaizing error of perpetual Saturday Sabbath observance are denying that Christ was Lord at his resurrection. Keep that in mind when you continue to vomit out these hair-brained conspiracy theories about Emperor Constantine changing the day of worship for some goofy pagan plan to destroy the church.

 

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...Christianity&p=6007929&viewfull=1#post6007929

The tract that I posted on another thread regarding the issue of both The Lord's Day being the 1st day of the week and also The Lord's Day being the NT Sabbath obligation under the 4th commandment should answer this question.

And for those who are still cleaving to this notion that The Lord's Day is not the 1st day of the week, considering that the 1st day was the day of Christ's resurrection, all who hold to the judaizing error of perpetual Saturday Sabbath observance are denying that Christ was not Lord at his resurrection. Keep that in mind when you continue to vomit out these hair-brained conspiracy theories about Emperor Constantine changing the day of worship for some goofy pagan plan to destroy the church.

The only choices are not either a Saturday or Sunday Sabbath. What if Christians have entered the perpetual Sabbath rest? Have not Christians rested from their works (because the High Priest has rested from His)?

 

[jmdrake]

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"?

Yes you were proven wrong. In your first statement that I quoted you said nothing about the gospel. You just said "Where in the Bible does it say anything about having a relationship with Jesus." You added the "gospel" part of your argument later.

 

[jmdrake]

When did the Sabbath change to Sunday?

Exactly. It wasn't. You can make a Biblical argument that there is no particular day of worship, but or that one should worship on all days, but not that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. But people will try anyway.

 

[jmdrake]

Great. Wonderful. Celebrate Jesus' birth. I will do the same. But I will do it in the knowledge that:

1) There's no biblical evidence that Jesus was born on December 25th.

2) There is no pre Constantine historical evidence of Christians believing He was born on December 25th.

3) Pagans were worshipping solar deities on or about December 25th long before the birth of Christ.

4) There is much about Christmas that comes straight from the pagan solstice festivals. (Mistletoe, Christmas trees, yule logs, high reindeer etc)

All of that being true, that doesn't negate the fact that Christmas is a wonderful time to remember what Jesus did for us in leaving His heavenly throne and coming to earth to be born as a lowly baby, born in an animal cave instead of a palace, clothed not in royal robes but in peasants garb (swaddling cloths), and put in a horse trough for a bed. Why concentrate on what you don't have the evidence to prove when there is so much good to talk about?

We celebrate Christ's birth in the world because of the love we have for Him and for one another. This is the reason why the Church celebrates Christmas. This is how the Feast developed.

This love for Christ is the love of the Holy Spirit, and this is the reason why the Churches which spoke different tongues and spread a long distance of travel away adopted this Feast.

The mission of the Church as commissioned by Christ was to go baptize the nations, and starting with the Twelve Apostles and then the other Apostoles God has sent out through every century since. Within this communion of churches tracing back to the first Patriarchates which existed, we find in every century this Church filled with great and holy saints, - men and women with the charismas and gifts of the very Holy Spirit of God. Beloved of the Triune God. These are saints who overtook even the earlier Prophets, becoming Prophets in their own right, in knowledge of Christ Jesus, and according to the grace and kindness of our Father in Heaven.

These saints shared a common love and zeal for Christ, and seriousness and obedience to the mission commissioned upon the Church by the Lord.

And that is why the Church of Christ has a communion of great and holy Saints of God from now until the beginning, not hidden under a bushel or a table, but known and revered, by the faithful members of the Church through every century. These Saints are as lighthouses, pointing to others the safe way, being a hope and aid in the night and the difficult days in this life. These Saints are the very salt of the earth, by whose prayers preserve the world and indeed all of creation. This, by the power of the Holy Spirit, from the shared love, spirit and faith between eachother in God.

For in this the Church is realized for what it is - a Church. The Church finds it fullness in what has always been the very essence of its ontology, which is a communion of baptized members of His Body sharing in love and joyful celebration of God. Indeed, in communion through His life-giving Body and Blood, which He has given for the life of the world, which He instituted to His Disciples in order to feed His flock.

Communion is personal. It is in fact the most personal and intimate relationship a person can have. But it is not only personal. Indeed, it finds its cosmic fullness and divine experience when we the faithful come together, in the image of the Trinity, to offer prayer, thanksgiving and worship, proclaiming: Christ is Born! Glorify Him!

The feasts of the Church arose because the people wanted to share this joy with the world, and spread the gospel with their neighbors, near and far.

Do not allow the degradation of Christmas by the secular, nihilistic, materialistic, relativistic, individualistic, God-hating culture we live in now cloud you into thinking there has never been a good and God-pleasing way. Nor that it cannot be found now.

There always has been an orthodox way, for there always existed those who have righteously defended the faith of the Apostles and the teachings of Christ. These true elect of God who have made lasting impressions in the world by their holiness and true spiritual piety and humbleness. Saints who worked miracles by the grace of God, and whose great acts of self-giving and self-sacrifice have been models by which we should live by.

Within this community of ancient churches, there was always been a communion of one Church from the beginning. It is this Church in which we find through the centuries the witness of the Christian faith. This is the Church which has survived and endured from the beginning, which can be traced through history and every epoch and era to arrive at the Apostles of Christ and the Upper Room on Holy Pentecost. A Church still inhabiting the earliest cities and seats of the Apostles and preserving and defending the ancient artifacts, manuscripts, and holiest sites which exist in this world.

Through every political system and cultural tradition, the Church has overcome. Suffering the greatest persecutions and with world's greatest number of martyrs, the Church has survived. Partaking of One Body and Blood, with all the faithful who ever lived, the Church exists as a Church, together celebrating the miraculous and wonderous birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Not because it is necessary, but because it is soul-lifting and inspiring.

These are how the feasts developed. To celebrate the love the Church has for God and for one another.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Where do you get that from the Bible?

It is logically derived from the fact that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance, that we are commanded to observe it because Christ observed it, and because creation ordinances cannot be typological only by definition.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ah, so maybe the state religion of the pagan Satanic Roman Empire made Christmas pagan. That would figure.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes you were proven wrong. In your first statement that I quoted you said nothing about the gospel. You just said "Where in the Bible does it say anything about having a relationship with Jesus." You added the "gospel" part of your argument later.

No I wasn't proven wrong. You can prove me wrong here very easily by posting one verse that says anything close to "have a relationship with Jesus". And of course I was talking about the gospel since the beginning because what else would the subject be?

So, where is the verse?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

FWIW, theres no reason for God to have a son who has to die in order for us to be forgiven for sins.

It doesnt add up.

That being said there is a book called "The Case for Christ".. i had gotten it from a friend some years ago and it was one of those books I just could not put down until the first 50-60 pages and my gf at the time misplaced it... anyway since I found it again Ill finish reading it.. Its a very fascinating read correlating all sort of historical documents that pertain to Jesus etc...


But that doesnt make him God.

Even as a little kid when I pray I pray to God the Father.. just go straight to the top.

 

[Ronin Truth]

FWIW, theres no reason for God to have a son who has to die in order for us to be forgiven for sins.

It doesnt add up.

That being said there is a book called "The Case for Christ".. i had gotten it from a friend some years ago and it was one of those books I just could not put down until the first 50-60 pages and my gf at the time misplaced it... anyway since I found it again Ill finish reading it.. Its a very fascinating read correlating all sort of historical documents that pertain to Jesus etc...


But that doesnt make him God.

Even as a little kid when I pray I pray to God the Father.. just go straight to the top.

That's been a very significant part of my take on that entire issue for quite some time also.

If you really want to forgive us then just go ahead and do it, for Christ's sake. If not, you's the boss, whatever.

Lose the drama.

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/04/...e-strobel/case-for-christ-the-lee-strobel.pdf

 

[Sola_Fide]

That's been a very significant part of my take on that entire issue for quite some time also.

If you really want to forgive us then just go ahead and do it, for Christ's sake. If not, you's the boss, whatever.

Lose the drama.

http://www.pdf-archive.com/2015/04/...e-strobel/case-for-christ-the-lee-strobel.pdf

Well, you don't understand the holiness of God, God's law, or actually anything else about Christianity. God can't "just forgive" sin because in doing so, His law would be unfulfilled, meaning He would not be a just judge.

But God is a just judge, and His law must be fulfilled. Jesus lived a perfect life and His righteousness is imputed to the elect so the law is fulfilled on their behalf, so they stand in the presence of God as completely sinless and just. This is what Christianity is.

 

[Influenza]

There's nothing just about a God who banishes every non-Christian to hell, even those that have never even heard the name Jesus spoken.