Accurate Christmas Information....

[John of Japan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Yes, I recently lectured to my students on how big the mistake was for the churches and pastors to let Constantine call the Council of Nicea.

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

Certainly not before Constantine, making your argument against Christmas in error.

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.

Yet at that time there was no pope, no bishops ruling over groups of churches, no transubstantiation, no purgatory, no confession, no "holy relics," no Mariolatry, no praying to the saints, no penance, no priesthood in the Catholic sense, etc., etc. So how was there a Catholic Church before Constantine, or even before Gregory the Great?

And once again relating this to the OP (which you consistently fail to do), this all means that no, the Catholics did not invent Christmas (which is not "Christ mass," as I have linguistically proven, which proof you have let stand by not replying).

 

[DMorgan]

For the OP, if you have not wandered into the weeds yet, here is an interesting, albeit winding, history on the beginnings and dates of the celebration of Christmas:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

 

[Bro. James]

Yes, I recently lectured to my students on how big the mistake was for the churches and pastors to let Constantine call the Council of Nicea.
Certainly not before Constantine, making your argument against Christmas in error.
Yet at that time there was no pope, no bishops ruling over groups of churches, no transubstantiation, no purgatory, no confession, no "holy relics," no Mariolatry, no praying to the saints, no penance, no priesthood in the Catholic sense, etc., etc. So how was there a Catholic Church before Constantine, or even before Gregory the Great?

And once again relating this to the OP (which you consistently fail to do), this all means that no, the Catholics did not invent Christmas (which is not "Christ mass," as I have linguistically proven, which proof you have let stand by not replying).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authority of the RCC stands or falls on the supposed apostolic succession handed down through the Apostle Peter. There is a list of popes, including many anti-popes, which is available for all to see. Ref: New Advent Encyclopedia. All popes since Vatican II are considered anti-popes by those who still want the mass in Latin. The present pope is also in the anti category.

Curious: every time the pope coughs, it makes worldwide headlines. The mystery of iniquity is making a full circle. Then there is the pope emeritus. That has to be a serious canonical dilemma.
Who has the keys now?

The Apostolic succession is based on an interpretation of Mt. 16 regarding keys to the kingdom being given to Peter. This is either true or false. If true, everyone outside the holy see is without authority--she has delegated authority to no one--making every one else usurpers. If false, Rome is without authority and are in fact usurpers--from the beginning, circa 4th century. This would also leave the daughters of Rome without authority. This authority thing got a lot of folks killed in the Dark Ages.

True Baptists have never been a part of Rome or the Reformation of Rome. They have never participated in the traditions, holydays and other pagan idolatry promulgated by Rome. Our Baptist forefathers were sawn asunder rather than bow to Rome.

Who is on the Lord's side?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Bro. James]

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass depends on who is paying for it and how much--transubstantiation can be expensive. It takes a lot of e-money to get canonized too. At one time, one could buy a bishopric, even a papacy. Has there ever been a time when this religious system has followed the scripture?

The Virgin Birth is a beautiful credential pointing Jesus, Immanuel, Savior, King of Kings. Giving gifts is wonderful. Associating these things with The Mass of Christmas is----------------------you fill in the blank.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authority of the RCC stands or falls on the supposed apostolic succession handed down through the Apostle Peter. There is a list of popes, including many anti-popes, which is available for all to see. Ref: New Advent Encyclopedia. All popes since Vatican II are considered anti-popes by those who still want the mass in Latin. The present pope is also in the anti category.

Curious: every time the pope coughs, it makes worldwide headlines. The mystery of iniquity is making a full circle. Then there is the pope emeritus. That has to be a serious canonical dilemma.
Who has the keys now?

The Apostolic succession is based on an interpretation of Mt. 16 regarding keys to the kingdom being given to Peter. This is either true or false. If true, everyone outside the holy see is without authority--she has delegated authority to no one--making every one else usurpers. If false, Rome is without authority and are in fact usurpers--from the beginning, circa 4th century. This would also leave the daughters of Rome without authority. This authority thing got a lot of folks killed in the Dark Ages.

True Baptists have never been a part of Rome or the Reformation of Rome. They have never participated in the traditions, holydays and other pagan idolatry promulgated by Rome. Our Baptist forefathers were sawn asunder rather than bow to Rome.

Who is on the Lord's side?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

These statements are completely unrelated to anything I've written on this thread and to the OP.

 

[John of Japan]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass depends on who is paying for it and how much--transubstantiation can be expensive. It takes a lot of e-money to get canonized too. At one time, one could buy a bishopric, even a papacy. Has there ever been a time when this religious system has followed the scripture?

As I have linguistically proven (and you have not answered), there is no such thing in 2015 as a "Christ Mass," except in the fevered imagination of those who oppose the blessed celebration of our Savior's birth called Christmas (which is not "Christ mass"). On the other hand, Catholics have a "Christmas Mass," which I oppose as heresy. (In quotes the term has 373,000 hits on Google, and 115,000,000 without quotes.)

The Virgin Birth is a beautiful credential pointing Jesus, Immanuel, Savior, King of Kings. Giving gifts is wonderful. Associating these things with The Mass of Christmas is----------------------you fill in the blank.

Taking away the words "The Mass of" (which is semantic nonsense when used of what we Baptists (and other good Christians celebrate in modern times), and filling in the blank, I say "wonderful and blessed."

 

[John of Japan]

For the OP, if you have not wandered into the weeds yet, here is an interesting, albeit winding, history on the beginnings and dates of the celebration of Christmas:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

First of all, this is a Catholic website. The Catholics always twist history for their own purposes. Other than that it is interesting in that it assigns the date for the origin of the "Christ mass" term to 1038, showing that Christmas was not considered a Catholic mass until many centuries after it originated. It was originally practiced by Bible-believing Christians well before Catholicism began in the 6th century.

 

[Bro. James]

First of all, this is a Catholic website. The Catholics always twist history for their own purposes. Other than that it is interesting in that it assigns the date for the origin of the "Christ mass" term to 1038, showing that Christmas was not considered a Catholic mass until many centuries after it originated. It was originally practiced by Bible-believing Christians well before Catholicism began in the 6th century.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many twists of history have we covered thus far?

To say that Christians celebrated Christmas-- Christ's mass--when it was not mass, is borderline ludicrous--kind of like trying to explain transubstantiation and consubstantiation. That is a lot more letters than I have.

Universal church: Constantine used the term according to Eusebius, Letters of Constantine III.

We seem to have reached an impasse in the world of timelines, holidays, and who said what when.

Paul, the Apostle, asked the Galatians who had bewitched them to follow another gospel. He also said he was afraid of them and how they were keeping days.

An interesting surf: "deeds of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate". St. Nico-las sure seems to be connected.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[agedman]

That papists cannot go a day without a celebration of something and or someone somewhere. This is typical of that which they have propagated from Constantine. The effect is to turn the truth of God into a worship of idolatry.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the worldly doing what the worldly do, for they are following the nature and character of their god.

Therefore when times such as Christmas comes around, it gives great opportunity for the believers to distinguish that of believing and living from that offered by the worldly. A great time to be a witness.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, some posts have disappeared here. I had several snappy answers that are lost in cyberspace. However, still having the email notification of a key post, I'm going to repost it here. I wrote:

For the facts of history (none really contested yet) we have:

1. Bible-believing Christians celebrating Christmas very early on, probably in the late 3rd century in the West.
2. Julian the Apostate inventing a Roman festival of the sun in 362, hoping to counteract Christmas
3. John Chrysostom the "Golden Mouthed" preacher recommending Christmas (not using that particular word) to Christians in 386 in his sermon, "On Christmas Day" (Ancient Christian Worship, by Andrew McGowan, p. 257). (See the English translation at: http://www.antiochian.org/node/21955)
4. Christians continuing to joyfully celebrate the Lord's birth through the centuries until the Catholics decided to call it "Christ Mass" in the 11th century.
5. In later centuries Christmas became celebrated in a more modern way as a family or church event, even while the Catholics were making it a "mass."
6. And now in modern times "Christmas" does not mean "Christ mass," but simply the celebration of the birth of Christ, a wonderful thing. And Bible-believing Christians celebrate the Lord's birth in a hugely different way from the Catholics, who now have a "Christmas Mass."

 

[John of Japan]

An interesting surf: "deeds of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate". St. Nico-las sure seems to be connected.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

This one is absolutely "ludicrous," to use your word. Rev. 2 ("Nicolaitans") was written in AD 96, while Nicolas of Myra in Lycea, who through no fault of his own became "Santa Claus" many centuries later, lived 270 to 343. He was a godly man, standing for the right at the Council of Nicea.

 

[Bro. James]

This one is absolutely "ludicrous," to use your word. Rev. 2 ("Nicolaitans") was written in AD 96, while Nicolas of Myra in Lycea, who through no fault of his own became "Santa Claus" many centuries later, lived 270 to 343. He was a godly man, standing for the right at the Council of Nicea.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some interesting points about Nicolaitanism: biblestudy.org/basicart/why/does/god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html

I have great difficulty separating Christ's mass from the apostaste in any generation. Why would someone name their son Nicolas? When has the word Nicolaitan not meant conquering the people?

Standing for the right at Nicea? The right date for Easter, another pagan holyday? New Testament churches were probably had no one at Nicea--they had no episcopacy, still don't.

Ludicrous is not the right word--ecumenism is no joking matter. Christendom is overcome with ecumenism. We also have a terminal case of respect of persons. Godliness will be judged at the Bema Seat. See "burning of the works", I Cor 3.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[TCassidy]

Why would someone name their son Nicolas?

Uh, because it is a good bible name?

Acts 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

 

[John of Japan]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some interesting points about Nicolaitanism: biblestudy.org/basicart/why/does/god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html

I have seldom seen a more incompetent treatment of NT Greek than on this website when they talk about the ending of "Nikolaitan," which is simply the genitive plural ending (with an omega, not an alpha or omicron), and that is all it is. The Greek article? That's ludicrous.

I have great difficulty separating Christ's mass from the apostaste in any generation. Why would someone name their son Nicolas? When has the word Nicolaitan not meant conquering the people?

Maybe because there was a good Nicolas in the NT.

Standing for the right at Nicea? The right date for Easter, another pagan holyday? New Testament churches were probably had no one at Nicea--they had no episcopacy, still don't.

Huh? The council Nicolas went to was on Arianism. The issue of Easter was quite secondary, hardly an issue at all. It is not even mentioned in the church history text I use, and in my supplementary texts.

 

[Bro. James]

I have seldom seen a more incompetent treatment of NT Greek than on this website when they talk about the ending of "Nikolaitan," which is simply the genitive plural ending (with an omega, not an alpha or omicron), and that is all it is. The Greek article? That's ludicrous.

Maybe because there was a good Nicolas in the NT.

Huh? The council Nicolas went to was on Arianism. The issue of Easter was quite secondary, hardly an issue at all. It is not even mentioned in the church history text I use, and in my supplementary texts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you considered getting a better history text? Even Constantine the Great one was talking about Easter, another pagan word by the way.

All Koine Greek nuances aside, does Nicolaitan mean to overthrow the people?

Whilst we are hanging out dirty laundry: Where do you fall in the statement, "True Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation, nor have they ever been part of Roman Catholicism? This probably should go to another thread.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Bro. James]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you considered getting a better history text? Even Constantine the Great one was talking about Easter, another pagan word by the way. Lately the worship has shifted to: Mary, mother of god, queen of heaven. "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..., more idolatry. Such seems to be reforming--in the wrong direction. How does one reform apostasy?

All Koine Greek nuances aside, does Nicolaitanism mean to overthrow the people?

Whilst we are hanging out dirty laundry: Where do you fall in the statement, "True Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation, nor have they ever been part of Roman Catholicism. This probably should go to another thread.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you considered getting a better history text? Even Constantine the Great one was talking about Easter, another pagan word by the way.

Any suggestions?

All Koine Greek nuances aside, does Nicolaitan mean to overthrow the people?

It is a compound make up of the words for "victory" and "people." As such, it could mean, "victory for the people" just as well as "overthrow the people." My Zondervan Bible dictionary has "conqueror of the people," but it could just as easily be "conqueror on behalf of the people." Either meaning is speculation. I know of no source that is authoritative on the meaning of Greek names.

Whilst we are hanging out dirty laundry: Where do you fall in the statement, "True Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation, nor have they ever been part of Roman Catholicism. This probably should go to another thread.

I agree with it.

 

[Bro. James]

Any suggestions?

It is a compound make up of the words for "victory" and "people." As such, it could mean, "victory for the people" just as well as "overthrow the people." My Zondervan Bible dictionary has "conqueror of the people," but it could just as easily be "conqueror on behalf of the people." Either meaning is speculation. I know of no source that is authoritative on the meaning of Greek names.

I agree with it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word is in context with the word deeds; and the scripture says The Lord hates these deeds. Should this not help us understand what the etymology might be? The deeds are probably not in line for a "well done, good and faithful servant."

There is a lot of black and white stuff here, Brother; are you riding the fence?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[John of Japan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word is in context with the word deeds; and the scripture says The Lord hates these deeds. Should this not help us understand what the etymology might be? The deeds are probably not in line for a "well done, good and faithful servant."

Context? What context? It's a name, and they don't have context. Besides, you seldom determine meaning from etymology, but from current usage.

There is a lot of black and white stuff here, Brother; are you riding the fence?

It's not black and white until you give me clear Scripture. Other than that, all I've seen on this thread is your opinion, with a lot of history alluded to but very rarely backed up with facts.

And I'm certainly not riding the fence. I've taken a firm stand in favor of Bible believing Christians celebrating the birth of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Bro. James]

Any suggestions?

It is a compound make up of the words for "victory" and "people." As such, it could mean, "victory for the people" just as well as "overthrow the people." My Zondervan Bible dictionary has "conqueror of the people," but it could just as easily be "conqueror on behalf of the people." Either meaning is speculation. I know of no source that is authoritative on the meaning of Greek names.

I agree with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggestion for a good church history: There is a no-cost copy of: "A Concise History of Baptists" by G.H. Orchard, available at: sglblibrary

Orchard gleaned an amazing amount of information--long before cyberspace.

There is a wealth of source information in this library.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus,
.
Bro. James