Christmas is not pagan

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sad to see that people just can't bring themselves to simply DO what God said to do but instead prefer catholic/pagan traditions of men.

Strawman and lack of understanding of context from Galatians 3 through 4. To rest in Christ is to DO what the shadow of the sabbath directed us to do.

As for the Millennium, that has been explained to you numerous times yet you seem to always pretend as if dispensationalism is the only "millennialism" there is. Why is that, I wonder?

I never said dispensationalism is the only millenialism. My point is that anyone who says there is a future millennium mistakes the prophecies about today to be future.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Strawman and lack of understanding of context from Galatians 3 through 4. To rest in Christ is to DO what the shadow of the sabbath directed us to do.

Rabbinic reasoning, refuted by Jesus in Mark 7.

I never said dispensationalism is the only millenialism. My point is that anyone who says there is a future millennium mistakes the prophecies about today to be future.

So John was mistaken? Hmm.. Because AFTER PENTECOST he most certainly spoke of a yet-future "millennium".

But I guess refuting amillennialism would derail this thread (even though both Christ's-Mass and Amillennialism are catholic) so I will desist.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Rabbinic reasoning, refuted by Jesus in Mark 7.

No contradiction and refutation. Context is context.

So John was mistaken? Hmm.. Because AFTER PENTECOST he most certainly spoke of a yet-future "millennium".

But I guess refuting amillennialism would derail this thread (even though both Christ's-Mass and Amillennialism are catholic) so I will desist.

Who said John was mistaken? Since when do we get doctrine from visions that are full of symbols and whose interpretations are not found in anything Jesus and the apostles plainly taught?

John wrote of what was and what was in his day as well as in the future, you know.

What is catholic is maintaining holy days and feasts when Christ embodies their fulfilment. Be complete IN CHRIST.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

You provided just what the described, books quoting from books that quoted from other books, with no real original source documents. Your sources don't even get the pagan religions right, just as the video points out. Nothing you cited would hold up in a court of Law, nothing about the origins of Santa, Saturnalia, Horace, or anything else.

Assertions get you no one where. Prove what you claim.

And as far as holding up in a court of law, now you're an expert in law. You have a degree in jurisprudence?

What's more, if this was a court of law, and the day stands accused of being pagan, and AFF is the jury, and I'm the prosecution, well, I've brought my charges and laid out my case against the Mass of Christ (as well Esaias and Amanah) but when it came to your turn, and the floor was yielded to you, as it were, all you did was re-assert the initial plea of not guilty, re-presumed the innocence of the day, then rested your case, offering no defense or rebuttal whatsoever.

That's about as close to "I'm taking my ball and going home" as one can get. It's pathetic.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Barb

If I may jump in on your discussion, I respectfully have a couple of questions:

Now, mind you… I know absolutely nothing about you personally, so I don’t know if you have a secular job. But if you do, would you accept a ‘Christmas bonus’ from your employer? Be it monetary or a ham/turkey, would you take it with thanks?

And if said boss closed up shop for the week between Christmas and the New Year, with pay, would you accept it?

Convictions are right and necessary, and I leave that all with the individual, but I have often wondered about this. I used to work with a very nice lady who was JW, and we were discussing Christmas one night at break. Since she brought the subject up, I asked if she took the $500 bonus, and she said, “Well, sure!”

That never made sense to me…

Again, I mean no disrespect to you or anyone who disagrees with Christmas, but I am curious about this.

No disrespect taken or perceived, I assure you.

I am happy to answer your questions.

First, I've never worked anywhere where I qualified for some kind of Christmas bonus, or a week off with pay, apart from vacation or PTO. In fact, I regularly volunteer to work secular holidays because they don't mean anything to me. Now, it happens that the last several years where I've worked, those places of employment close on Christmas day, and I have no control over that, but I recently worked Thanksgiving, even though I didn't have to, and I am working this Christmas Eve. I never participate in any Secret Santa programs, either. I also let everyone I know with whom I work, including my employers that I do not celebrate the day.

Apart from those things, there is something else here that needs to be addressed, regarding your question. It is the rare company indeed that just gives out actual Christmas bonuses, no matter what is claimed. The reality is, what most companies are doing at this time of year, is giving out End of Year Tax-Deductible Charitable Gifts and Donations for themselves, which they call "Christmas" bonuses, or etc. There is a difference.

Make no mistake. It's not about a company or corporation actively celebrating the Mass of Christ with gifts in the same way most people's families and/or friends give gifts to each other this time of year, in honor of the pagan holy day.

So, if a secular company gives out an End of Year, Tax-Deductible Charitable Gift or Donation, we really shouldn't think of it as a "Christmas" bonus or gift. In fact, it's not really even a gift given to you. It's a gift given to themselves, to help them with their own financial success, especially if the company or corporation has suffered any losses that year.

Be that as it may, I will tell you that the first year I stopped celebrating the Mass of Christ, my dad still offered me two hundred dollars for me to buy gifts for my kids, and I turned him down, but that's as close as I've personally ever come to being given any kind of Christmas bonus.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

I do appreciate you taking the article seriously instead of outright rejecting it. We don't have a fear-based approach in the Orthodox church about these things, so while I get what you're saying about the 1%, just...no.

Maybe we're wrong. Maybe God is angry with us and jealous of something we do with our families that literally doesn't take away from Him at all. I'll take my chances on that because that's not the God I believe in. And my wife and I come from a reasonably long line of non-Christmas celebrators, and are very modest in our own celebrations. Our own idol, er, tree is only 12" tall LOL

The central part of my faith around this season is celebrating the Nativity of our Lord, which yes, we celebrating on December 25 (on whichever church calendar the jurisdiction uses - another discussion) and has no mention of Christmas trees in the service.

I do believe you and the other main contributors in this thread choose not to celebrate due to a genuine desire to please God and not out of fear and I can respect that. I hope you're not like the ones I saw growing up that preach against Easter on Easter b/c to me that's just weird. But kudos for working it out for yourself.

I doubt you're going to convince any Orthodox Christian (not that we're your only audience) based on much of the information you presented because 1 - we respect the Tradition of the Church, which has been worked out/hashed out over many centuries and 2 - we do not give much credence to isolated examples or unlabeled marginal remarks, but rather the consensus of the whole Church as we work things out together (not accepting it blindly as it might seem). This is a radical difference in our viewpoints but very important.

Again, thanks for at least considering the article/rant on its merits even if we don't agree

You're welcome.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

As for Sunday worship, the same rule does apply. The day is irrelevant t God. It is completely inert.

You speak for God in these matters? That's a bold claim, in light of the fact that you can't point to any Scripture that affirms your claim.

And no, Romans 14:5-6 isn't about intentionally meeting on Sundays for Christian worship.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Amanah

God sanctified and commanded the Sabbath in Genesis and Exodus.

Constantine and the Catholic Church (Mystery Babylon) legislated Sunday worship.

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

You say that like it's a bad thing.

A lot of what Constantine did were bad things. I personally want no associations with that man.

As far as instituting Sunday, let his own words speak for him:

On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.

He took the laws of the Torah regarding the Sabbath, and perverted them by his own whim on his own authority. And what, by the way, makes Sunday so "venerable"? Remember, he was a professing member of the Cult of the Sun and the worship of Sol Invictus, even after his so-called conversion.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The early church met on the first day of the week, but the Apostles never instituted that as a requirement. But just because Constantine made it a requirement does not mean it should be forbidden now. And the Roman Catholic Church did not even exist in the day of Constantine.

Are you so sure about the early church meeting on the first day of the week?

Because the phrase "first day of the week" is barely found in the New Testament.

Here is a link with all of the times you see the phrase in question:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...egin=47&end=73

There are eight references, six of which are in reference to Christ's resurrection, with the last two being from Acts and 1 Corinthians respectively.

Furthermore, when one looks at the Greek text, it is universally the same:

The text is typically given as mian sabbaton or mia ton sabbaton/sabbatou, except in Mark 16:9, which reads prote sabbaton.

In every instance in which the Greek word mia is found, it is imperative to realize the word is not an ordinal, but actually means the number #1.

As such, translating as "first" is a mistake, representing years of bias toward Sunday. Addtionally, you can see that the Greek term being translated as "week" is simply the Hebrew term shabbat transliterated.

Therefore, the correct translation for the phrase is "On one of the Sabbaths".

The only exception is Mark 16:9, which uses prote, which is an ordinal, and does mean "first". But note in the Greek, the word "day", i.e. hemera isn't present. So, it's not "first day, but rather, "first of the Sabbath".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Are you so sure about the early church meeting on the first day of the week?

Because the phrase "first day of the week" is barely found in the New Testament.

Here is a link with all of the times you see the phrase in question:

https://www.biblegateway.com/quickse...egin=47&end=73

There are eight references, six of which are in reference to Christ's resurrection, with the last two being from Acts and 1 Corinthians respectively.

Furthermore, when one looks at the Greek text, it is universally the same:

The text is typically given as mian sabbaton or mia ton sabbaton/sabbatou, except in Mark 16:9, which reads prote sabbaton.

In every instance in which the Greek word mia is found, it is imperative to realize the word is not an ordinal, but actually means the number #1.

As such, translating as "first" is a mistake, representing years of bias toward Sunday. Addtionally, you can see that the Greek term being translated as "week" is simply the Hebrew term shabbat transliterated.

Therefore, the correct translation for the phrase is "On one of the Sabbaths".

The only exception is Mark 16:9, which uses prote, which is an ordinal, and does mean "first". But note in the Greek, the word "day", i.e. hemera isn't present. So, it's not "first day, but rather, "first of the Sabbath".

Acts 20:6-7 KJV
And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. [7] And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Remarks:

1. They apparently kept the Feast of Unleavened Bread outside of Jerusalem. At the very least, they used God's calendar to reckon time rather than a pagan calendar. We should remember this is Luke's account, and is designed to show the spread of the Gospel from Jerusalem to the gentiles of the known world.

2. They ate a meal upon the first of the week. This would have been at the end of the Sabbath (Saturday evening). It was common practice to conclude the Sabbath with a "havdala" service marking the separation between the Sabbath sacred time and the beginning of the week secular time. Havdala usually includes the lighting of lamps or candles, readings from Scripture, prayer, and exhortation/preaching/teaching. This is also the origin of the Vespers service with the Lighting of the Lamps etc. So what's happening here is they marked the end of the Sabbath with a customary fellowship meeting.

3. Paul was departing on the morrow, apparently Sunday morning. So much for church on Sunday morning.

There is no "Sunday church service" here, if anything it supports the fact the early church was a Sabbath keeping Feast-observing community.

1 Corinthians 16:1-3 KJV
Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. [2] Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. [3] And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.

Remarks:

1. No mention of any church service on Sunday.

2. This was a charitable collection for the poor Christians in Jerusalem, not "the offering" part of any supposed Sunday service.

3. The "lay by him in store" means for each person to reckon up their finances and set aside whatever they were going to donate, so that would all be taken care of when Paul arrived to pick up the community donation. The fact it was to be done on the first of the week (and not the Sabbath) shows the early Christians handled financial matters AFTER THE SABBATH WAS OVER , at the BEGINNING of the week. This is the exact opposite approach a Sunday keeping community would follow, but is entirely consistent with both ancient Sabbath keeping and modern Sabbath keeping as well.

4. Non Sabbath keepers seem to lack experiential knowledge in what Sabbath keeping looks like in practice, therefore they eisegete their own ignorance into the Bible just like trinitarians.