Featured Accurate Christmas Information....

Here is a study that uses both Scriptures and Science to place the birth in September.

I read through it twice and, even though have held to April as the date, I may need to consider revising my thinking.

After you folks have read it, let me know your own thoughts:

The Time of Jesus' Birth

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you are saying I am saying is not what I am saying--an interesting strawman perhaps, but a misunderstanding as to what I mean.. Your scriptural references seem to be about 3 months different than the references in post #42. It seems odd that Jesus' birthday would fall in the same week as the Feast of Saturn plus other Roman pagan idolatry.

The Mass of Christ(Christmas), is a Roman Catholic holy day. Why would a child of God want to participate in pagan idolatry. "Wherefore, come out from among them saith The Lord, touch not the unclean thing." Where in the scripture are we told to remember His birth? He does tell us to remember His death--in the Lord's Supper; but not His birth. This takes nothing away from "A virgin shall conceive and bring forth a Son...to be called Immanuel..." The Virgin birth and Deity of Christ are plain teachings in scripture.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

No. It is a difference between the Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar. January 6th on the modern day calendar = Dec 25th on their LITURGICAL calendar.

In other words, it is two different calendars. There are even "Old Calendar" EO schismatics in Russia.

So a Russian Orthodox person will look at their secular calendar that says January 6th, but his liturgical calendar says Dec 25th.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

I am going to disagree with my own post. Some things can be nailed down historically. Other things such as when certain Roman Catholic doctrines became standard fare and believed by the rank and file --it is generally not so definitive. It's too gradual. Of course there were particular pronouncements made from time to time, but when the general RC church has actually believed in certain extra-biblical teachings it's not so cut and dried.

 

And once again you have ignored my requests for actual historical facts. Your opinions are meaningless in a debate about history.

 

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

Nailing down the history--

Heretical doctrine can be observed in writings of the so-called Holy Fathers, before and after Nicea in the fourth century. "The mystery of iniquity was already at work" when the New Testament was being written. It is interesting to read the New Advent Encyclopedia in the heretics section. Just who the real heretics might be is an interesting study. New Testament churches are heretical according to the holy(?) see.

History is written by the victorious. Many times the vanquished were the righteous,and their records destroyed. The gates of Hell have assailed and failed--as promised by Jesus.

That the mass of Christ is heretical is plain. Who, what and when is a bit foggy. This does not make such less heretical. Most folk approach this subject with a closed mind.

Taking a stand will usually raise havoc in the family--kind of like coming out of Rome.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

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

Definition please: What is an actual historical fact? From: Book of Acts? Holy fathers? CCC? New Advent? Brittanica Encyclopaedia?

The mass of Christ is a fact? Teaching real presence is a fact. That both are heretical is a fact.

Putting an exact date is not a requirement for verity. Heresy usually comes from heresy.

Are we using the same jargon book? My book says false teaching and heresy are synonymous.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

If you don't know what an historical fact is, there is no way I can teach you what it is here on the BB.

What do these statements have to do with what you think is wrong with Christmas?

Do you have any quotes from Eusebius, the church historian of the early centuries? What about a quote from Tertullian, Papias or some other born again pastor in the early church?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have mentioned no dates. I'm simply asking for the historical basis for your opinions, something you refuse to give (perhaps because the historical basis does not exist).

Once again, I am forced to conclude you have no historical facts on your side. This statement has nothing to do with anything I've written.

 

I am just curious and this will be my only question. Do you and your family celebrate Christmas in any way?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lord showed me the truth about the Mass of Christ about forty years ago. The more I preached against it, the heavier the opposition. We have an artificial tree which stays lit 24-7-365- 1/4, Jewish, Julian and/or Gregorian. Not sure what that means--weak preaching for sure. I do not celebrate or revel in a religious sense and consider such to be pagan idolatry; which is exactly what Mass on any day would be. I can appreciate the vexation of Bro. Lot. Remember Lot's wife? We are in the midst of another era of Sodom and Gommorah. Jesus said to remember His Death--the notions of celebration and revelry are never appropriate in worship. Seems our flesh would rather be conformed to the world.
We love to entertain our flesh and call it worship.

An interesting surf: "Why was Christmas made illegal in the U.S. and England?"

Another interesting situation: Starbucks Christmas Cup.

Some folk say keep Christ in Christmas; some say He was never there from the beginning.

Let the cash registers start ringing and the e-money start flowing.

Happy Hanukah.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Ugh, that's just a horrible phrase.

Cicero was not in the victorious side, and I can read his writings all day long. Gmosticism wasn't victorious, generally speaking, but I can read the entire Nag Hammadi library online. The Qumran community is long gone, but how many of us have read their writings?

 

A couple of quick points here folks.

1. Linguistics: the origin of the word "Christmas" may have been "Christ Mass," but it does not now mean that. Linguists almost never determine the meaning of a word from its etymology (origin). Even if you are a Catholic you will say, "Christmas Mass." As for me personally, I have never ever celebrated a Catholic mass at Christmas in any way, shape or form.

2. I find utterly ridiculous the opinion (with no historical or Biblical proof whatsoever) that by honoring the birth of Christ with my family singing hymns and giving gifts I am sinning.

 

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

"actual historical" is an interesting modifier. Does this mean there are imaginary historical facts.
The only standard for verity is scripture rightly divided. Authenticity and verity are not synonymous. It is possible to be authentic and false. See: conversation between Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden. Satan beguiled Eve by adding to The Word of God. Satan's words are authentic and false.

Apparently we are having difficulty understanding that the papal system is corrupted from before Constantine and Helena. Apostasy revised is still revised apostasy. The mass of Christ is part of this corrupted religious system. "What fellowship does righteousness have with unrighteousness?"

The Word of God needs no corroboration from secular history, including Holy fathers and all right reverend doctors since them.

"beware the wolves dressed like sheep"

Peace,

Bro. James

 

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

Welcome to the BBB.

You are right. I left out some important qualifiers: Most history available to the laity is written by the victors. All history has the bias of the paradigms of the historian--not always a disinterested third party. There is also the bias of the religious powers that be in every generation, especially the ones who controlled copying of manuscripts. The Bible is the only real source of unbiased history.

Sometimes the history of the vanquished is written in blood--the extent of which is seriously glossed over by the powers that be-- secular and religious.
A lot of good stuff has been made available on the www. Most still cannot get into the Vatican Library without proper permit. It would be nice to get into Cambridge and Oxford too.

Then there are the folks who burned libraries and unauthorized books. See origins of the English Bible.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Yes, the imaginary ones would be the ones you keep referring to without telling us what they are.

And here is an example of imaginary facts. I dare you--I double dog dare you--to prove this historical argument. I disagree that the Catholic Church as it now is existed before Gregory the Great. Prove that it existed before Constantine. Give quotes and facts.

Yes, but your argument is completely from history. You have not given a single Scripture--not one single Scripture to prove that Christmas is apostasy. In fact, you have refused to deal with Scripture given to you, Col. 2:16.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No doubt the universal church has morphed a lot in the past 1900 years. The major milestone on the timetable is when Constantine consolidated the universal church folk(Catholic=universal), circa 325 C.E. See the words of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, which he called. This was quite a conclave of universal churchmen, probably not dressed in sackcloth. This universal church error started a lot of the apostasy, long before Constantine and Helena gathered their icons and married a Church with the State.

An interesting treatise: lavistacchurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2006/10-02a.htm.

Answering the question: Why did the religion Catholicism start and what year did Catholicism start?

The RCC has to really stretch to find popes from Constantine back to Peter, there may not have been any. The universal bishop was probably after the Pontifex Maximus through the Roman Empire.

Interesting: Constantine moved his offices to Constantinople, named for himself of course. He in effect split his universal church into East and West. When the West tried to Lord over the East about the papacy there was a serious split, which still exists.

What does all of this have to do with New Testament Christianity? NADA--universal church is still apostate, albeit morphed and reformed many times.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James