Accurate Christmas Information....

[Rippon]

Most of the heresies of the modern Catholics did not come about until Gregory the Great (540-604): penance, purgatory, the Mass, transubstantiation, a celibate clergy, etc. (Who Was Who in Church History, by Elgin Moyer, p. 172).

From what I have gleaned, Mr. Moyer may have confused (or you have confused) Gregory the Great with Pope Gregory the 7th when it comes to priests having to be celibate. The doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Mass came about during the time of Pope Innocent the 3rd--around 1215.

I encountered conflicting info regarding Penance. One source says it started up at the Council of Chalon-sur-Saone. Another said it started in 1022.

Gregory the Great probably did introduce the doctrine of Purgatory to an official status.

But all in all, Calvin described Gregory the Great as "the last great pope." gregory seems to have not been power-mad. He never wanted the office and tried to do his best --which not many popes have done.

 

[John of Japan]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing intended in a personal sort of way--sorry you have been offended.

Not a problem. I just was not getting your post. (Still not sure who or what you called apostate.)

Apostasy: falling away from The Truth.

IMO, this is a very inadequate definition. By this I might think that a church to be apostate which does not do the Lord's Supper like I think is "the Truth" of it.

The Roman Church, so called, has been apostasizing since before Constantine foisted a cross on his battle flags. The Great One was a pagan. That he was ever truly converted is highly questionable. The Pontifex Maximus system is pure paganism. The Pontiff system is still around--controlling by the power of Satan, the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air--there are many daughters and grand daughters.
Now what?

I agree completely with these statements. But I'm not sure what they have to do with Christmas. The celebration of the birth of Christ was well under way long before the Roman Catholic Church was established with all its heresies (which most church historians put at the time of Gregory I).

I would love to take the church history test. There are probably others. Could you make it available on the www?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Tell you what, I'll put the first part on the BB "History" (not "Baptist History") thread and see who is interested.

 

[Bro. James]

Not a problem. I just was not getting your post. (Still not sure who or what you called apostate.)

IMO, this is a very inadequate definition. By this I might think that a church to be apostate which does not do the Lord's Supper like I think is "the Truth" of it.

I agree completely with these statements. But I'm not sure what they have to do with Christmas. The celebration of the birth of Christ was well under way long before the Roman Catholic Church was established with all its heresies (which most church historians put at the time of Gregory I).

Tell you what, I'll put the first part on the BB "History" (not "Baptist History") thread and see who is interested.

 

[Bro. James]

How about: apostasy--a standing off, and or turning away/falling away from The Truth.

The Book of Jude has a lot to say about falling away--See vss. 3,4. The whole 25 vss. is a treatise on apostasy.

Falling away from the Truth about Baptism and the Lord's Supper is still the crux of what separates the New Testament Churches from the apostate churches. Rejection of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism has meant the death for a multitude of Real Christians--martyred by apostate Christians. The apostates are still in charge--via the god of this world. The apostates also wrote and revised The history of The Church. We live in a world of ecumenism--many folk scoff at making a stand for such things. How soon we forget.

Re: Church History midterm. Thank you for posting.

Many of the references go back to early fathers and others not so early who may or may not have done some serious revision of the facts. Whatever the "holy fathers" may have written seems confusing and contradictory to scripture. These apparently highly educated gentlemen were trying to find harmony between Greek philosophy, mythology and other pagan practices(the Mass of Christ would fall into this observation). Sola Scriptura was in effect long before Luther was born.

In the 4th century Constantine, the Great, saw a sign: in hoc signo vinces; this resulted in the marriage of an apostate church(es) and the State--they also controlled the libraries.

Someone is being brainwashed--probably us.

Please do not take any of this personally. I am just pointing out some observations noticed in studying World History and Church History for thirty years.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

 

[John of Japan]

How about: apostasy--a standing off, and or turning away/falling away from The Truth.

This is not much different from your previous definition. The Greek word apostasia from which we get "apostasy" occurs twice in Scripture. In Acts 21:21, the sense is apostasizing or falling away from a specific body of doctrine, that of Moses. In 2 Thess. 2:3 it also occurs, but is ambiguous. If you continue to define it your way instead of as the falling away from a specific body of truth, you then can call whomsoever you wish "apostate"--and you appear to do that in this post.

The Book of Jude has a lot to say about falling away--See vss. 3,4. The whole 25 vss. is a treatise on apostasy.

Of course. But what does that have to do with Christmas? How is celebrating Christmas apostasizing in any way, shape or form?

Falling away from the Truth about Baptism and the Lord's Supper is still the crux of what separates the New Testament Churches from the apostate churches. Rejection of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism has meant the death for a multitude of Real Christians--martyred by apostate Christians. The apostates are still in charge--via the god of this world. The apostates also wrote and revised The history of The Church. We live in a world of ecumenism--many folk scoff at making a stand for such things. How soon we forget.

Again, totally irrelevant. And your vague definition allows you to call "apostate" Bible Presbyterians and anyone else you don't like, including, I suppose, some of us here on the BB if we celebrate Christmas.

Re: Church History midterm. Thank you for posting.

You are entirely welcome.

Many of the references go back to early fathers and others not so early who may or may not have done some serious revision of the facts. Whatever the "holy fathers" may have written seems confusing and contradictory to scripture. These apparently highly educated gentlemen were trying to find harmony between Greek philosophy, mythology and other pagan practices(the Mass of Christ would fall into this observation). Sola Scriptura was in effect long before Luther was born.

This is extremely broad. There were many "church fathers." It's quite easy to call some of them apostate without specifying.

In the 4th century Constantine, the Great, saw a sign: in hoc signo vinces; this resulted in the marriage of an apostate church(es) and the State--they also controlled the libraries.

This is all irrelevant to the discussion at hand, true though it may be.

Someone is being brainwashed--probably us.

Sorry, not me.

Please do not take any of this personally. I am just pointing out some observations noticed in studying World History and Church History for thirty years.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

I don't take this personally, just puzzledly. Your assertions are vague and unfocused.

 

[Calypsis4]

From the Popular & Critical Bible Encyclopeadia of 1909 (a real gem of a source):

"The first records we find of the observation of this day (Christ's birthday) are in the second century, about the time of the emperor Commodus (180 A.D.)."

The position that the Catholic church originated the celebration was preceded by the persecuted Christians by 2 1/2 centuries. All the 'church' did was to solemnize December 25th as officially 'Christmas' for the Catholic world.

The real 'birthday of the gods' was the Winter Solstice, December 21st. That changed in time and the fact that pagans celebrate the birthday of their pagan gods on December 25th is inadvertent to what Christians do. We need not even need refer to it as 'Christmas' (Christ's mass).

The celebration is voluntary and not a command.

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Romans 14:5

 

[Revmitchell]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is based on Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope:

"Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other." Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) Para 80.

And Holy Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. CCC Para 81.

There is a lot more interesting information in the chart provided by Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest, founder of Berean Beacon Ministries.

A closer study of this issue will show that when there is a disagreement between Scripture and Tradition, the Tradition through the infallible Pope are the final authority.

Not much wiggle room here. Sola Scriptura.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Does anybody know what this guy is saying here?

 

[Bro. James]

Re: Post # 25. More umbra than penumbra: specific doctrine--scriptural baptism and closed communion. I think I have more than alluded to such in my last post. The mystery of iniquity was already at work when the NT was penned. Other gospels were being preached(by apostates) when Apostle Paul pronounced them: anathema--even a messenger from heaven. It is not yet two days since Jesus was here(in God's time--a thousand years is a day). We are in the last hour of the sixth day since creation. The seventh day will be a rest--for God's people.

Re: Church History. Like scripture, there are two streams of Church History, one seriously corrupted. There is the history according to the Book of Acts--and there is the History according to the New Advent Encyclopedia. Most historians seem to be hung up in New Advent. Is the brush still too broad?

"We ought to obey God, rather than men"

When one gets down to the "nitty and gritty" on "Holy Fathers" there is a lot of conjecture about who wrote what when. How do we identify authentic copies of copies of the pseudo copies made by over zealous scribes and clerics. God is not the author of confusion. Scripture is the only source of Truth.
The traditions of men are exactly that--vain worship of the commandments of men--more apostasy. This is the major reason there can be no dialogue between the holy see and those who believe sola scriptura. There is no common ground for discussion if man's traditions are equal with The Word of God.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus

Bro. James

 

[Calypsis4]

Re: Post # 25. More umbra than penumbra: specific doctrine--scriptural baptism and closed communion. I think I have more than alluded to such in my last post. The mystery of iniquity was already at work when the NT was penned. Other gospels were being preached(by apostates) when Apostle Paul pronounced them: anathema--even a messenger from heaven. It is not yet two days since Jesus was here(in God's time--a thousand years is a day). We are in the last hour of the sixth day since creation. The seventh day will be a rest--for God's people.

Re: Church History. Like scripture, there are two streams of Church History, one seriously corrupted. There is the history according to the Book of Acts--and there is the History according to the New Advent Encyclopedia. Most historians seem to be hung up in New Advent. Is the brush still too broad?

"We ought to obey God, rather than men"

When one gets down to the "nitty and gritty" on "Holy Fathers" there is a lot of conjecture about who wrote what when. How do we identify authentic copies of copies of the pseudo copies made by over zealous scribes and clerics. God is not the author of confusion. Scripture is the only source of Truth.
The traditions of men are exactly that--vain worship of the commandments of men--more apostasy. This is the major reason there can be no dialogue between the holy see and those who believe sola scriptura. There is no common ground for discussion if man's traditions are equal with The Word of God.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus

Bro. James

Thank you for that.

Question: Is the practice mentioned in Romans 14:5 'man's tradition'?

 

[Bro. James]

Does anybody know what this guy is saying here?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Sir. This is one of several examples in the Catholic Catechism that teaches the traditions of the church are equal in authority with scripture. This is further advanced in the teaching of infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex officio--not sure if this applies to anti-popes. Canon lawyers are working overtime. Popes emeritus are kind of hard to explain too.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

Does anybody know what this guy is saying here?

Not I. Whatever it is, he refuses to relate it to the OP.

 

[Bro. James]

Not I. Whatever it is, he refuses to relate it to the OP.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to the OP: the truth about Christmas is this celebration is a paganization of a Bible Truth promulgated by a paganized, apostate church. God has a real problem with pagan idolatry--it robs Him of His Glory. Scripture is silent about remembering Jesus' birth. He commands us to remember His death. He also tells us to be not conformed to the world.
This issue can split a family--almost like coming out of Catholicism. Been there done that.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Revmitchell]

Again Christmas is only Pagan if you make it Pagan.

 

[John of Japan]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to the OP: the truth about Christmas is this celebration is a paganization of a Bible Truth promulgated by a paganized, apostate church. God has a real problem with pagan idolatry--it robs Him of His Glory. Scripture is silent about remembering Jesus' birth. He commands us to remember His death. He also tells us to be not conformed to the world.
This issue can split a family--almost like coming out of Catholicism. Been there done that.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

No, sorry, the OP is about "Accurate Christmas Information," of which you have given none. You have only generalized. This post of yours is only opinion with no proof. In order to prove your opinion, please give accurate historical information about in what way and at what time, which apostate churches made Christmas an apostate and pagan celebration.

 

[Calypsis4]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Sir. This is one of several examples in the Catholic Catechism that teaches the traditions of the church are equal in authority with scripture. This is further advanced in the teaching of infallibility of the Pope when he speaks ex officio--not sure if this applies to anti-popes. Canon lawyers are working overtime. Popes emeritus are kind of hard to explain too.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Brother, I asked you a question which has as of yet, been unanswered:

Question: Is the practice mentioned in Romans 14:5 'man's tradition'?

The truth is that if what Paul said is true....and it must be for it is the Word of God, then we aren't even supposed to be arguing about the celebration or non-celebration of holidays, holy days, or any other day. It is a voluntary choice to do or not to do.

 

[John of Japan]

Re: Post # 25. More umbra than penumbra: specific doctrine--scriptural baptism and closed communion. I think I have more than alluded to such in my last post. The mystery of iniquity was already at work when the NT was penned. Other gospels were being preached(by apostates) when Apostle Paul pronounced them: anathema--even a messenger from heaven. It is not yet two days since Jesus was here(in God's time--a thousand years is a day). We are in the last hour of the sixth day since creation. The seventh day will be a rest--for God's people.

I just noticed that this was directed at my post #25. It would help if you would quote my post in answering it. The quote feature is quite easy to use.

Re: Church History. Like scripture, there are two streams of Church History, one seriously corrupted. There is the history according to the Book of Acts--and there is the History according to the New Advent Encyclopedia. Most historians seem to be hung up in New Advent. Is the brush still too broad?

Yes, very broad. What does this have to do with the OP

"We ought to obey God, rather than men"

There is nothing in the OP about obeying anyone.

When one gets down to the "nitty and gritty" on "Holy Fathers" there is a lot of conjecture about who wrote what when. How do we identify authentic copies of copies of the pseudo copies made by over zealous scribes and clerics. God is not the author of confusion. Scripture is the only source of Truth.

There is very little conjecture about most of the church fathers. Again, you give no specifics, only general statements. Give a church father who talks about Christmas, please, and then we can deal with it.

The traditions of men are exactly that--vain worship of the commandments of men--more apostasy. This is the major reason there can be no dialogue between the holy see and those who believe sola scriptura. There is no common ground for discussion if man's traditions are equal with The Word of God.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus

Bro. James

Please address the OP. Pleas give specific historical information as to why you are against the celebration of Christmas. There is nothing in the Bible to support your position, so you can quote Scripture all day long and it won't convince anyone.

 

[agedman]

Personally, I don't hold very tightly to December 25 as the birthday, rather I place it closer to April 13 - 15.

 

[Bro. James]

I just noticed that this was directed at my post #25. It would help if you would quote my post in answering it. The quote feature is quite easy to use.

Yes, very broad. What does this have to do with the OP

There is nothing in the OP about obeying anyone.

There is very little conjecture about most of the church fathers. Again, you give no specifics, only general statements. Give a church father who talks about Christmas, please, and then we can deal with it.


Please address the OP. Pleas give specific historical information as to why you are against the celebration of Christmas. There is nothing in the Bible to support your position, so you can quote Scripture all day long and it won't convince anyone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting surf: on BING I asked: "Why was Christmas illegal in America?"
There were 6,630,000 entries. Still working on page 1. Similar entries should be on other search engines.

I can only speak for myself; however,most real Baptists, etal, want nothing to do with the papists and their "holydays." Maintaining this stand will create no small amount of havoc in family traditions--at the meeting house too.

Study: Jesus, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword...

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[TCassidy]

I can only speak for myself; however,most real Baptists, etal, want nothing to do with the papists and their "holydays."

So, you are saying we are only "real Baptists" if we deny that Zacharias was of the course of Abia (Luke 1:5), that he served in the eighth course of priests (1 Chronicles 24), serving the third week in September, meaning John the Baptist was conceived in late September (Luke 1:23-24) and born 9 months later in late June, and that Jesus was 6 months younger than John (Luke 1:26) so was born in late December.

So, in order to be a "real Baptist" we have to deny what the bible says about when Jesus was born?

I don't think so.

 

[Bro. James]

So, you are saying we are only "real Baptists" if we deny that Zacharias was of the course of Abia (Luke 1:5), that he served in the eighth course of priests (1 Chronicles 24), serving the third week in September, meaning John the Baptist was conceived in late September (Luke 1:23-24) and born 9 months later in late June, and that Jesus was 6 months younger than John (Luke 1:26) so was born in late December.

So, in order to be a "real Baptist" we have to deny what the bible says about when Jesus was born?

I don't think so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this take into account the differences in calendars? Jewish, Julian and Gregorian are different.

The issue is really not when Jesus was born, but rather: " what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? Or the temple of God with Belial?"

The whole Romish system is founded on apostate, paganized idolatry. It matters not how it reforms, it is still reformed apostasy. She is a masterpiece of deception, a fact much watered down in our modern world of ecumenism.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James