# Origins of Christmas



## SHMELTON (Dec 18, 2008)

i have been doing a little research on the subject, and I have found this to be a little disturbing.  First of all, Christmas was set on December 25th to incorporate the Roman festival of Saturnalia.  This was the largest pagen holiday during Roman times.  The pilgrams would not celebrate Christmas when they came to America because in England, the celebration was equilivant to our modern Mardi Gra.  I have even seen documents stating that anyone in Boston caught celebrating Christmas in those times would be put to death.  So how has Christmas come to what it means today?  Don't get me wrong I celebrate the holiday myself, but how did it change over the years.  Santa Claus was regarded as a mean ugly troll until the pretty pictures were painted by Coca cola.  If you don't believe google origins of christmas and see what it says.  I am just not sure we are celebrating a pagan holiday that has been misconstrude as being a christian holiday.  I guess the reason I am bringing this up to you guys, is because my father-n-law brought it up to me and it has made me wonder. What are your thoughts.


----------



## PJason (Dec 18, 2008)

SHMELTONS_BOYS said:


> What are your thoughts.


 
You need to do more research


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 18, 2008)

I will be honest, I dont have a clue how it started.


----------



## Bitteroot (Dec 18, 2008)

Don't let anyone tell you that it is NOT good that you question what we do in realtion to worship. The bible says to work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. And to study daily so that you will know the truth.  

Most of my family do not Celebrate Christmas in the same manner as many do. My wife is a devote Christian. I am not so strong, but have strong core beliefs that I will not compromise.  I think it is a great time of year to have a celebration and I have always loved it and always will.  IMO The birth of Christ while miraculous is not the great part of his life. He was born a man and had to face the same things (to some extent) that we do. His triumphant life, death, and victory over the grave is what I celebrate. But not on any particular day. I think it is to be acknowedged every day of the year. (many as I do, acknowlege it at the taking of the lords supper) 
I have searched some on it myself and found Christmas was basically started in the New World in the 1800's. After the Revolution, Americans desperatly wanted a holiday and chose that particular time and date to do so. I will not sit in judgement of those that celebrate it as a Religious Holiday, but I chose not to. It is more like Thanksgiving to my family. I find nothing in the Bible that corrolates the New Testament Church having any such practice and Christmas is not found anywhere in the bible that I now of. Yes the birth of Christ is, but is not referenced as a day of celebration.  Easter is mentioned in the Bible, but in reference to being around the time that Christ was Crucified.  There are many guys here more knowledgable than I on many thing so they will have much input on the subject. And bust me up a bit too!  I don't celebrate it for these reasons, and because I believe the Bible teaches against having special times and seasons (in realtion to worship) and thats just the path I follow. Many will think this odd I'm sure, but thats OK too. I know there is much contraversy over its origins, so you are promting me to look a little more too.

Thanks


----------



## PJason (Dec 18, 2008)

Bitteroot said:


> He was born a man and had to face the same things (to some extent) that we do.



This is the exact reason why we celebrate His miraculous birth. The “He” we are talking about is not just some he but the ultimate He. He could have just appeared as a man no birth necessary. The fact that He humbled Himself in order to be born like us should humble us and is the reason we celebrate. He suffered the same as we do temptation to sin, pain, loss, grief, and more. I have said before He was no less God in the manger then He was on the cross. Without His birth there would be no cross, without the cross no resurrection, without the resurrection there is no salvation.


----------



## earl (Dec 18, 2008)

The history channel just did a program on this. Christmas did start as a pagan festival .it was once banned by the puritans. If you want truth do the research and dont just listen to rhetoric and popular trends.


----------



## Bitteroot (Dec 18, 2008)

I can't say I totally disagree with your primise. I guess to me it is his sinless life that is the example we should emulate.  We could debate all day the "What If's" of Christ falling to temptation as a mortal man.  I just can't find where it was commanded or even requested or practiced by the first century new testament church. Therefore, I choose not to do it in that context. If I'm wrong for NOT celebrating a man made institution in the Worship service, then I guess I'll have to explain that in the end.


----------



## pnome (Dec 18, 2008)

It all centers on the Winter Solstice.  

The pagan holidays got their start from celebrating the time when the days started getting longer instead of shorter.  "Sol Invictus" as the Romans called it.   Christians co-oped the Roman holidays in order to make it easier to proselytize Romans.   Jesus was more likely born in the fall (when shepherds guarded their flocks at night).  

It seems to me, that if you are looking for a truly Christian holiday, Easter is the better choice.


----------



## earl (Dec 18, 2008)

Pnome ,i disagree. Easter is more a pagan festival of fertility. Eggs, rabbits, dressing in you finest. Actually i am not sure that there are any truly original christian holidays. I think the jews have a lock on biblical holidays.


----------



## SHMELTON (Dec 18, 2008)

earl said:


> Pnome ,i disagree. Easter is more a pagan festival of fertility. Eggs, rabbits, dressing in you finest. Actually i am not sure that there are any truly original christian holidays. I think the jews have a lock on biblical holidays.



Christ celebrated, the Feast of Tabernacles, passover, and Pentacost.  Therefore I believe they are true Christian Holidays.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 18, 2008)

PJason said:


> You need to do more research



What he said.  You really need to do a little more digging, and the Coca Cola thing is an urban legend


----------



## pnome (Dec 18, 2008)

earl said:


> Pnome ,i disagree. Easter is more a pagan festival of fertility. Eggs, rabbits, dressing in you finest. Actually i am not sure that there are any truly original christian holidays. I think the jews have a lock on biblical holidays.



Hmm I guess I've never considered that.  I've always thought of Easter as a Christian only holiday.   Certainly does have some pagan customs.


----------



## earl (Dec 18, 2008)

Boys, do your research. Those are jewish celibrations or derive from jewish celibrations.


----------



## SHMELTON (Dec 18, 2008)

The English word Easter and the German Ostern come from a common origin (Eostur, Eastur, Ostara, Ostar), which to the Norsemen meant the season of the rising or growing sun -- the season of new birth. The word was used by ancient Europeans to designate the "Feast of New Life" in the spring. 


Also, everybody seems to forget Christ was a Jew, therefore he celebrated Jewish holidays honoring his father.  So many "Christians" want to follow in christ's footsteps, yet they know so little about what they celebrate, or how distorted his teachings have become over the centuries.


----------



## SHMELTON (Dec 18, 2008)

II.     How Did Christmas Come to Be Celebrated on December 25?

A.    Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25.  During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration.  The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.”  Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week.  At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman.

B.    The ancient Greek writer poet and historian Lucian (in his dialogue entitled Saturnalia) describes the festival’s observance in his time.  In addition to human sacrifice, he mentions these customs: widespread intoxication; going from house to house while singing naked; rape and other sexual license; and consuming human-shaped biscuits (still produced in some English and most German bakeries during the Christmas season).

C.    In the 4th century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it.  Christian leaders succeeded in converting to Christianity large numbers of pagans by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians.[2]

D.    The problem was that there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. To remedy this, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25th, to be Jesus’ birthday.

E.      Christians had little success, however, refining the practices of Saturnalia.  As Stephen Nissenbaum, professor history at the University of Massachussetts, Amherst, writes, “In return for ensuring massive observance of the anniversary of the Savior’s birth by assigning it to this resonant date, the Church for its part tacitly agreed to allow the holiday to be celebrated more or less the way it had always been.”  The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated by drinking, sexual indulgence, singing naked in the streets (a precursor of modern caroling), etc.

F.      The Reverend Increase Mather of Boston observed in 1687 that “the early Christians who  first observed the Nativity on December 25 did not do so thinking that Christ was born in that Month, but because the Heathens’ Saturnalia was at that time kept in Rome, and they were willing to have those Pagan Holidays metamorphosed into Christian ones.”[3]  Because of its known pagan origin, Christmas was banned by the Puritans and its observance was illegal in Massachusetts between 1659 and 1681.[4]  However, Christmas was and still is celebrated by most Christians.

G.    Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city.  An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators.  They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”[5]

H.     As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”[6]  On December 25, 1881, Christian leaders whipped the Polish masses into Antisemitic frenzies that led to riots across the country.  In Warsaw 12 Jews were brutally murdered, huge numbers maimed, and many Jewish women were raped.  Two million rubles worth of property was destroyed.



III.     The Origins of Christmas Customs

A.     Christmas Trees
Just as early Christians recruited Roman pagans by associating Christmas with the Saturnalia, so too worshippers of the Asheira cult and its offshoots were recruited by the Church sanctioning “Christmas Trees”.[7]  Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.

B.     Mistletoe
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna.  Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim.[8]  The Christian custom of “kissing under the mistletoe” is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.[9]

C.     Christmas Presents
In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January).  Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace.  The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas (see below).[10]

D.     Santa Claus

a.       Nicholas was born in Parara, Turkey in 270 CE and later became Bishop of Myra.  He died in 345 CE on December 6th.  He was only named a saint in the 19th century.

b.      Nicholas was among the most senior bishops who convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and created the New Testament.  The text they produced portrayed Jews as “the children of the devil”[11] who sentenced Jesus to death.

c.       In 1087, a group of sailors who idolized Nicholas moved his bones from Turkey to a sanctuary in Bari, Italy.  There Nicholas supplanted a female boon-giving deity called The Grandmother, or Pasqua Epiphania, who used to fill the children's stockings with her gifts.  The Grandmother was ousted from her shrine at Bari, which became the center of the Nicholas cult.  Members of this group gave each other gifts during a pageant they conducted annually on the anniversary of Nicholas’ death, December 6.

d.      The Nicholas cult spread north until it was adopted by German and Celtic pagans.  These groups worshipped a pantheon led by Woden –their chief god and the father of Thor, Balder, and Tiw.  Woden had a long, white beard and rode a horse through the heavens one evening each Autumn.  When Nicholas merged with Woden, he shed his Mediterranean appearance, grew a beard, mounted a flying horse, rescheduled his flight for December, and donned heavy winter clothing.

e.       In a bid for pagan adherents in Northern Europe, the Catholic Church adopted the Nicholas cult and taught that he did (and they should) distribute gifts on December 25th instead of December 6th.

f.        In 1809, the novelist Washington Irving (most famous his The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle) wrote a satire of Dutch culture entitled Knickerbocker History.  The satire refers several times to the white bearded, flying-horse riding Saint Nicholas using his Dutch name, Santa Claus.

g.       Dr. Clement Moore, a professor at Union Seminary, read Knickerbocker History, and in 1822 he published a poem based on the character Santa Claus: “Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.  The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in the hope that Saint Nicholas soon would be there…”  Moore innovated by portraying a Santa with eight reindeer who descended through chimneys.

h.       The Bavarian illustrator Thomas Nast almost completed the modern picture of Santa Claus.  From 1862 through 1886, based on Moore’s poem, Nast drew more than 2,200 cartoon images of Santa for Harper’s Weekly.  Before Nast, Saint Nicholas had been pictured as everything from a stern looking bishop to a gnome-like figure in a frock.  Nast also gave Santa a home at the North Pole, his workshop filled with elves, and his list of the good and bad children of the world.  All Santa was missing was his red outfit.

i.         In 1931, the Coca Cola Corporation contracted the Swedish commercial artist Haddon Sundblom to create a coke-drinking Santa.  Sundblom modeled his Santa on his friend Lou Prentice, chosen for his cheerful, chubby face.  The corporation insisted that Santa’s fur-trimmed suit be bright, Coca Cola red.  And Santa was born – a blend of Christian crusader, pagan god, and commercial idol.


----------



## earl (Dec 18, 2008)

Shmeltons  boys...... The best post ive seen on the subject. Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Big10point (Dec 19, 2008)

It is obvious that the romish church took an old pagan festival (saturnalia, winter solstice, yule, etc) and "christianized" it.... is that even possible? i dont think so.  our KJ says that God hates the works of the nicolaitans, chaldeans and pagans... plus, xmas is flatout a LIE... God cannot condone anything that is a lie.. God hates lying and has sent people to helll for lying. so how can He approve of a pagan festival that the popes have cornered and christianized....?  Its not possible.  God did not give us the birthdate of Jesus for a reason. He wanted to see who would worship Him and who would worship manmade traditions.  I used to "worship" and love xmas, when i was not in the Truth. I was worldy just like  everyone else and loved xmas just like the world... but we are to come out and be a separate people.  God tells us that man-made traditions are vain. If God wanted us to celebrate Jesus' b'day, He would have told us to do so...  Christians should celebrate the entire life of Jesus all day every day, not on this day or that day.  He is our Savior and we'd all go to helll w/o Him... to me thats ground for consistent celebration IN the Lord, my Savior...  all the time...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 19, 2008)

wow....that is all I can say....


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 19, 2008)

In my bible "nkjv, niv, as," I read where we are told to celebrate his death, not his birth. But I don't think Jesus is sitting in heaven disapproving of us remembering his birth. Jesus is to be worshiped and celebrated everyday, every hour, and every minute. Sometimes I think that we Christians take our obligation to Jesus to lightly. We are to quick to condemn others and look over our own shortcomings. Its a shame that there are some people that do not think of God but two or three times a year during holidays. Every day is God's day, Every place is God's place, every minute is God's time, every person is a child of God and evey sin we commit was paid for by the pervect sacrifice of Jesus Christ our Lord. Now friends that is something that needs to be celebrated and not just once a year, once a month or once a week but every single time we take a breath.


----------



## PJason (Dec 19, 2008)

So it is flat out wrong to take something "pagan" and make it Christian? It wrong to use anything pagan and apply it to God? No matter who does it.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 19, 2008)

Oh yes I forgot one thing. Isn't it wonderful that God can see what's in our heart now and us not have to worry what was in the heart of pagen's hundred's of year ago


----------



## farmasis (Dec 19, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> Oh yes I forgot one thing. Isn't it wonderful that God can see what's in our heart now and us not have to worry what was in the heart of pagen's hundred's of year ago


 
Deacon, why does so many people ignore that truth!!

Thank you.

 1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol _is_ nothing in the world, and that _there is_ no other God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us _there is_ one God, the Father, of whom _are_ all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom _are_ all things, and through whom we _live._
7 However, _there is_ not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat _it_ as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 
9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Cor 8)

God knows what is in the heart. But, if a Christian is not strong enough in his faith to celebrate Christmas because he thinks it is not honoring God, he should not. And, I should not fault his for his convictions.


----------



## earl (Dec 19, 2008)

AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this thread has taken a turn i would not have thought possible after reading the responses to the first part of cornelia hikers thread.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 19, 2008)

I feel like eating, drinking and making merry...with some of those human shaped biscuits.  (I love gingerbread).


----------



## earl (Dec 19, 2008)

Me too. I like the pilsbury doughgirl myself.


----------



## Israel (Dec 19, 2008)

Believers/disciples ought to be the most "examining " folks around. If a disciple has not yet come to the point where he sees everything he thought he knew prior to his conversion was a mistake, that up is down, down is up, life is reached through death and glory is reached through humility, I fear that disciple hasn't come very far in the Lord.

It is not that things are "different" in the Lord...they are precisely opposed to everything of the world we have ever learned. And once a disciple has learned this he is not quick to ascribe to God or the faith those things, even with the Lord's name attached, as a work of faith or truth.

We are often peculiar in this area...though Paul commended the Bereans in this regard, for questioning his doctrines against the scriptures...yet who among us today would say to another christian...when you read Ephesians it's ok to "test" Paul's words. 
The assumption is the "scripture" is settled, and though I wouldn't argue against that, neither would I have any problem with a brother telling me he had a hard time receiving some of it. What I mean is this, I do not believe God wants us to think we need to be a bunch of "yes" men in the sense that we say we believe something or hold to something...when in our hearts it really hasn't been settled.
I have found the Lord wants true faith, and isn't afraid of true doubt...he is more than capable of persuading us of those things of which we need persuading.

So, I said that to say this...if God really does want us to be folks that believe with our hearts and minds (which I believe he does)...not a bunch of automatons...then I believe he surely wants us to question all of the world's influences upon us...even the seemingly good ones.  

Therefore, I am more or less of the opinion a new creature starts with a clean slate...knows little or nothing of what the Lord desires...only that he knows he has been accepted by Jesus and made a son of God by faith. 

Now, he can go one just being told what to do...or he can finally come to the place where he has learned this..."a man can receive nothing except it be given him from above"...and that the life of a disciple is not in following men, being a member of a religion, even "doing" what the Bible says...but that his life, this new life in Christ, is lived by revelation of the Lord Jesus. Now, men can help guide in that, the Bible can certainly aid in that, and fellowship is certainly a part of that...but ultimately it is only the bread that comes down from heaven, that inner hearing of God, that can confirm any disciple in the faith. 

The "knowing" of God is always personal and intimate. Repeating what the Bible says is not the same as having God's word written upon ones heart because God has brought one through a particular test that has made this word alive, active, and indeed, branded it into the flesh.
That's why Jesus had such disdain for the ways of the Pharisees, he saw that even though they thought they knew the scriptures, they had no clue as to what they so confidently proclaimed. And they shunned any of the experiences that are necessary to live by the word of God.
They liked preeminence. 
To be a disciple one must come to appreciate the value of humiliation. And its necessity. 
Jesus embraced it.
Paul said he gloried in it. 
Every faithful disciple since has come to learn the value of it. 
For it is only in being made to look foolish to the world by humbling oneself under the hand of God that we learn the truth of being received of God, when all men are ashamed of us...even our parents if and when need be.
God often waits while we exhaust the "meat" of dining upon the good opinion of others, and when finally he alone is our food, we discover that what he gives cannot be shaken, and has value greater than gold. Trusting in others, even "good" brethren is like leaning upon a sharp stick...we can trust others to do and be for us what God alone would have them do and be...but there is only one in whom trust is to be "placed".
So, in the matter of celebrations...of things we have been told are for the Lord's glory and purpose...the disciple is always interested in one thing...did this originate from heaven, or beneath? It matters not what any man says about anything, and surely myself included...but if one is going to say of anything...I keep this as unto the Lord...then it is incumbent upon to him to be fully persuaded thus...not just as a matter of tradition, not just as a matter of convenience.

If he is not persuaded, it will fall away in the testing of it. As rightly it should.

If he is persuaded, he will be ready to give an answer for the faith that is within him that what he says is of God...is of God.


----------



## SHMELTON (Dec 19, 2008)

Pnome, please show me where I am wrong in my first post.  Remember Jesus was a nonconformist, and he did not except mainstream beliefs of his time, if they weren't in accordane with the truth. So how does it make us true christians to celebrate pagan holidays?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 20, 2008)

PJason said:


> So it is flat out wrong to take something "pagan" and make it Christian? It wrong to use anything pagan and apply it to God? No matter who does it.





Yes, no matter who does it.   Have you studied the OT? God destroyed people for being pagan, secular, humanist, worldy, sinful, etc.  ALL men are evil and it does not matter who you are.  Jesus calls us evil over and over. There are no righteous men. Because of our sin we all deserve helll. We are only righteous thru Him, not of our selves.  So how can ANY sinful man, whether Billy Graham or (not so) Innocent III, give us anything new to follow???  They cannot.  If they do tell us to do something, like celebrate xmas, then they are adding to the Word of God which is grave sin.  Gal 1:8-9 says we can add nothing to His Word, ever.  No xmas, no ishtar, no new doctrines, nothing ever.  We have His Word and can add nothing, see also Rev 22:18...  We (sinful man) can add or bring nothing to His Word. We cant make it better. We cant add or delete.  We are all rotten to the core and deserve helll, unless we are totally committed to Christ. So, to answer your question, no you cannot take something that is evil in God's eyes, such yule, winter solstice, saturnalia, etc. It cannot be done... Why take the chance anyway...?  We only get one chance in this life to prove our love for God...  why blow it by following men (whether Graham or popes) and not obeying God's commands...?


----------



## PJason (Dec 20, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Yes, no matter who does it.   Have you studied the OT? God destroyed people for being pagan, secular, humanist, worldy, sinful, etc.  ALL men are evil and it does not matter who you are.  Jesus calls us evil over and over. There are no righteous men. Because of our sin we all deserve helll. We are only righteous thru Him, not of our selves.  So how can ANY sinful man, whether Billy Graham or (not so) Innocent III, give us anything new to follow???  They cannot.  If they do tell us to do something, like celebrate xmas, then they are adding to the Word of God which is grave sin.  Gal 1:8-9 says we can add nothing to His Word, ever.  No xmas, no ishtar, no new doctrines, nothing ever.  We have His Word and can add nothing, see also Rev 22:18...  We (sinful man) can add or bring nothing to His Word. We cant make it better. We cant add or delete.  We are all rotten to the core and deserve helll, unless we are totally committed to Christ. So, to answer your question, no you cannot take something that is evil in God's eyes, such yule, winter solstice, saturnalia, etc. It cannot be done... Why take the chance anyway...?  We only get one chance in this life to prove our love for God...  why blow it by following men (whether Graham or popes) and not obeying God's commands...?



Even taking a pagan poem and using it to show the One True God?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 20, 2008)

PJason said:


> Even taking a pagan poem and using it to show the One True God?



Its obvious that no matter what, you are going to allow pagan things in your spiritual life. By your posts, its very clear, that things that are pagan but called "Christian", are OK in your book...  Thats fine if that works for you.  It doesn't work for me and I know that God doesnt approve either.  I look at my Bible as the only important and worthy reference for me that there is...  Nothing given to the world by uninspired evil men will ever influence me again...  if you and other people want to believe in satan clause, or believe that Augustine actually added anything worth while to Christianity or an ancient pagan or nicolaitan can offer anything spiritually fine, go for it... not for me...  Just my 1611 Bible for me.  Our God is a serious God and our spiritual journey is most important.  It has to be right and in the Truth or God just burns it up...  When a pagan does a good deed or feeds the poor, God just burns up that deed. Pagans, heathens and unsaved people are not pleasing to God or their good works. So again, no you cannot take a pagan poem and change it into something pleasing to God. Jesus said that God is scouring the earth for people to worship Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH....  The only Truth that there is, besides Jesus, is the real and only Bible, the KJ 1611...


----------



## JustUs4All (Dec 20, 2008)

Big10point said:


> ... not for me...  Just my 1611 Bible for me.... The only Truth that there is, besides Jesus, is the real and only Bible, the KJ 1611...



Does your KJ version contain the books of the Apocrypha? Most today do not.  It was translated and included in the original 1611 version but began to be omitted in 1824 when the British and Foreign Bible Society removed its subsidy from the printing of any copy in which it was contained.


----------



## PJason (Dec 20, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Its obvious that no matter what, you are going to allow pagan things in your spiritual life. By your posts, its very clear, that things that are pagan but called "Christian", are OK in your book...  Thats fine if that works for you.  It doesn't work for me and I know that God doesnt approve either.  I look at my Bible as the only important and worthy reference for me that there is...  Nothing given to the world by uninspired evil men will ever influence me again...  if you and other people want to believe in satan clause, or believe that Augustine actually added anything worth while to Christianity or an ancient pagan or nicolaitan can offer anything spiritually fine, go for it... not for me...  Just my 1611 Bible for me.  Our God is a serious God and our spiritual journey is most important.  It has to be right and in the Truth or God just burns it up...  When a pagan does a good deed or feeds the poor, God just burns up that deed. Pagans, heathens and unsaved people are not pleasing to God or their good works. So again, no you cannot take a pagan poem and change it into something pleasing to God. Jesus said that God is scouring the earth for people to worship Him in SPIRIT and in TRUTH....  The only Truth that there is, besides Jesus, is the real and only Bible, the KJ 1611...




So St. Paul using pagan poetry to teach about Christ is out in your book?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 20, 2008)

PJason said:


> So St. Paul using pagan poetry to teach about Christ is out in your book?



Paul was inspired by the HS...  God and the Holy Spirit can do how they please... They own it all and Paul was an instrument to convey their message.  Nobody since John have been inspired, just evil.  There is nothing that can be added to the Word whether from the popes, Graham, Smith, Young, Augustine, or anyone that can be accepted.  We take what has already been given to us by God and we allow the Holy Spirit to interpret it for us... not the popes, or any other religious person can interpret. There has never been a religious person that has some special knowledge of Scripture or of God than anyone else...  If they truly are wise their wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit...  we can bring nothing to the table but sin and error.


----------



## PJason (Dec 20, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Paul was inspired by the HS...  God and the Holy Spirit can do how they please... They own it all and Paul was an instrument to convey their message.  Nobody since John have been inspired, just evil.  There is nothing that can be added to the Word whether from the popes, Graham, Smith, Young, Augustine, or anyone that can be accepted.  We take what has already been given to us by God and we allow the Holy Spirit to interpret it for us... not the popes, or any other religious person can interpret. There has never been a religious person that has some special knowledge of Scripture or of God than anyone else...  If they truly are wise their wisdom comes from the Holy Spirit...  we can bring nothing to the table but sin and error.



So using something pagan can be ok, if you say it is? But when say a Pope or Augustine says they are insprided by the HS you through it out because you disagree. You become the Pope and judge who is and who is not inspired by the HS.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 21, 2008)

PJason said:


> So using something pagan can be ok, if you say it is? But when say a Pope or Augustine says they are insprided by the HS you through it out because you disagree. You become the Pope and judge who is and who is not inspired by the HS.



There has been no "inspired" men since John....  Sure there has been people filled with the Holy Spirit that does not mean they can go out and write "inspired" books that others should bow down and follow. God closed all new revelation with the book of Revelation.... Nothing can be added to His Word...  The next revelation will Be Christ or something that Christ institutes... no pope or any other sinful man can add anything. They can give us their opinion of Scriptures but it means nothing to God.  We are to teach and preach and evangelize this dying world with what God has already given us, His Word.  We are not to go out in the world and teach what Gregory, Hagee, Graham or any other sinful man has given us... All they can give us is their opinion of the Word.  And if its their own interpretation, instead of the Holy Spirits....  than that interpretation is very likely to be wrong.  All man are corrupt and in error and that includes every pope that has ever lived.  They are not infallible, Graham is not, nor any other man.. We are all in the same boat together.... All corrupt and sinful and in need of the saving blood of Christ.
There are no "reverends"...  No man is to be "revered"...  Its an unbiblical title for a sinful man.  Only God is revered.
Look at the definition of revered...

Main Entry: 1re·vere  
Pronunciation: \ri-Ëˆvir\ 
Function: transitive verb 
Inflected Form(s): re·vered; re·ver·ing

: to show devoted deferential honor to : regard as worthy of great honor <revere the aged> <revere tradition> 
synonyms revere , reverence , venerate , worship , adore mean to honor and admire profoundly and respectfully. revere stresses deference and tenderness of feeling <a professor revered by her students>. reverence presupposes an intrinsic 

did you notice that revere, worship and venerate are all the same.  God was very clear in the Bible that we are to worship of revere any man.  So how can just some sinful man, even if he is a Christian, write anything that we should use in our Christian journey...?  Its impossible.
Its not inspired by God. Since John, there has been NO man that has written anything that is inspired.  No sinful man can take something pagan and "Christianize" it.  God can Christianize anything He wants to... but He never made xmas a Christian celebration. Telling a child there is a santa claus is a lie.  In my Bible, a simple lie send people to helll...  God can never agree to this.  Anyone that says God approves of lying to children, is committing idolatry by making up their own gods...


----------



## PJason (Dec 21, 2008)

Big10point said:


> In my Bible



And we get to the heart of it


It is your interpretation that counts and only yours.

Your interpretation is infallible. You have become your own Pope and the only one able to interpret scripture.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 21, 2008)

PJason said:


> And we get to the heart of it
> 
> 
> It is your interpretation that counts and only yours.
> ...




Its not my interpretation of the Bible. I thought I was clear on that...  Only the Holy Spirit can interpret the Bible.  We are commanded by God to use Scripture to prove Scripture. Evil man cannot interpret the Bible. Not any of us.. We are to study it and allow the Holy Spirit to tell us what it means... assuming you are filled with the Holy Spirit, that is...  if you are not filled with the Spirit then you will come up with your own intrepretation...  Thats what people do who are not born again.  They dont have a Holy Spirit to interpret for them, so they do it themselves and always incorrectly..  Jesus said, "You MUST be born again..."  He did not say, "you must be baptized as an infant..."  You have 2 types of people, those who are born again and those who are not.  The born again people will always allow the Holy Spirit to interpret while the non born again will do it themselves... OR WORSE, allow another man to do it for them...  If another sinful man says, "allow me to tell you what the Bible means...."  run for your life...  So no, I dont interpret anything myself... I am not capable.  Only the Holy Spirit can interpret for the born again believer...  religious people will do it themselves or allow someone else tell them what it means...


----------



## PJason (Dec 21, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Its not my interpretation of the Bible. I thought I was clear on that...  Only the Holy Spirit can interpret the Bible.  We are commanded by God to use Scripture to prove Scripture. Evil man cannot interpret the Bible. Not any of us.. We are to study it and allow the Holy Spirit to tell us what it means... assuming you are filled with the Holy Spirit, that is...  if you are not filled with the Spirit then you will come up with your own intrepretation...  Thats what people do who are not born again.  They dont have a Holy Spirit to interpret for them, so they do it themselves and always incorrectly..  Jesus said, "You MUST be born again..."  He did not say, "you must be baptized as an infant..."  You have 2 types of people, those who are born again and those who are not.  The born again people will always allow the Holy Spirit to interpret while the non born again will do it themselves... OR WORSE, allow another man to do it for them...  If another sinful man says, "allow me to tell you what the Bible means...."  run for your life...  So no, I dont interpret anything myself... I am not capable.  Only the Holy Spirit can interpret for the born again believer...  religious people will do it themselves or allow someone else tell them what it means...



So you have decided that the Popes, Graham, and Augustine are not born again because they do not interpret the Bible the way you do? You decided that they are not guided by the Holy Spirit. You again have decided who is and who is not "born again" you have made yourself infallible.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 21, 2008)

Let's not get too personal/combative guys.


Big10Point, while I admire your passion, please refrain from calling the Roman Catholic Church the "Romish" church or such. That is insulting. Also, personally, I can't stand the shortened "XMas" word. I would think any poster in this forum would have no problem keeping the word Christ in Christmas regardless of whether or not they celebrate the holiday. It is His birth and the reason why the majority of Christians care about this time of year.

PJ, don't get your dander up too much Brother. 


This is a good thread. Let's keep it that way.



By the way, regardless of where the holiday started, it is about the birth of our risen Lord and praise His name.


----------



## discounthunter (Dec 22, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Let's not get too personal/combative guys.
> 
> 
> Big10Point, while I admire your passion, please refrain from calling the Roman Catholic Church the "Romish" church or such. That is insulting. Also, personally, I can't stand the shortened "XMas" word. I would think any poster in this forum would have no problem keeping the word Christ in Christmas regardless of whether or not they celebrate the holiday. It is His birth and the reason why the majority of Christians care about this time of year.
> ...



to not use xmas because YOU cant stand it, is personal.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 22, 2008)

Here we go...!!!


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

_Unto my words, give ear, O Lord; hear my cry. Attend unto the voice of my supplication, O my King and my God; for unto Thee will I pray, O Lord. In the morning Thou shalt hear my voice. In the morning shall I stand before Thee, and Thou shalt look upon me; for not a God that willest iniquity art Thou. He that worketh evil shall not dwell near Thee, nor shall transgressors abide before Thine eyes. Thou hast hated all them that work iniquity; Thou shalt destroy all them that speak a lie. A man that is bloody and deceitful shall the Lord abhor. But as for me, in the multitude of Thy mercy shall I go into Thy house; I shall worship toward Thy holy temple in fear of Thee. O Lord, guide me in the way of Thy righteousness; because of mine enemies, make straight my way before Thee. For in their mouth there is no truth; their heart is vain. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues have they spoken deceitfully; judge them, O God. Let them fall down on account of their own devisings; according to the multitude of their ungodliness, cast them out, for they have embittered Thee, O Lord. And let all them be glad that hope in Thee; they shall ever rejoice, and Thou shalt dwell among them. And all shall glory in Thee that love Thy name, for Thou shalt bless the righteous. O Lord, as with a shield of Thy good pleasure hast Thou crowned us._​

Merry Christmas All


Dóminus vobíscum


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 22, 2008)

scooter1 said:


> Here we go...!!!



Nope we aren't going anywhere. It'll stop here or be locked down. 

Merry Christmas Guys and Gals


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> So you have decided that the Popes, Graham, and Augustine are not born again because they do not interpret the Bible the way you do? You decided that they are not guided by the Holy Spirit. You again have decided who is and who is not "born again" you have made yourself infallible.



Again, i do not interpret the Bible. And, i dont decide who is born-again or not... but Jesus said, "you will know them by their fruits..."  So, yes, i can look at a person's "fruits" and have an idea if they are born-again or not... if i go out and kill 10 people, you can make an assumption that i am not a Christian...   because of my "fruits" which was murder. I am sure Hinn is not a murderer BUT he is a false prophet because of his doctrines of demons, which we can look at as "fruit"... Jesus gave us the ability to look at an individuals fruits and make a decision if that person needs to be evangelized or not...  if He didn't how would we ever knew who we should teach the Gospel to....? Christians (filled with the Spirit) can judge if its done spiritually and w/o hypocrasy.
1 Cor 2:15
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man...
Yes, i and anyone else (who is filled with the Spirit) can look at another man's fruits and determine if that man is born-again...

I am sorry if "xmas" offends yall...  i cannot put the most amazing word in the world (Christ), in the same sentence with the "mass"... i cant do it. and i dont mean to offend by using the word romish either. i didnt think that was offensive...


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

X=Chi=Christ 

The usage is as old as the Church. The term Xmas is at least 1,000 years old. So technically you are using the name Christ in Xmas. You just did not know it. 

II Timothy 2:15


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> X=Chi=Christ
> 
> The usage is as old as the Church. The term Xmas is at least 1,000 years old. So technically you are using the name Christ in Xmas. You just did not know it.
> 
> II Timothy 2:15



thank you for teaching me something...  doesnt change anything....  you can never put x back in xmas because x was never in xmas...


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> X=Chi=Christ
> 
> The usage is as old as the Church. The term Xmas is at least 1,000 years old. So technically you are using the name Christ in Xmas. You just did not know it.
> 
> II Timothy 2:15



PJ,
please explain something to me...  everybody in the world (except the 100 million little kids who were lied to by their parents) knows that God Himself did not institute "xmas"...

It is a man-made  holy day (so-called)... But the whole holi day is based upon lies. Jesus was not born on 12/25, so thats a lie.  There is no santa claus, thats a lie.  God says, "let all men be liars...".  There is not anything about the holiday that's not a lie... So please help me understand something...  How can God approve of something that He did not institute, and that is a complete and totally fabricated lie, created by men...? God can send people to helll for telling one small little lie...  so please help me how God takes this man made fabricated lie and puts His approval on it...?  If God condemns people for lying, but then approves of this xmas lie Himself...  wouldn't He become a liar too?  Which we all know that God cannot lie....  I just dont understand your logic?
Please help me understand that, because I do not...


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

Big10point said:


> PJ,
> please explain something to me...  everybody in the world (except the 100 million little kids who were lied to by their parents) knows that God Himself did not institute "xmas"...




Your problem here is a logical fallacy. You can not know what everyone in the world believes or does not believe. You can only assume. I believe that Christmas was instituted by God through His Church. I know others who believe the same, can you prove He did not?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> Your problem here is a logical fallacy. You can not know what everyone in the world believes or does not believe. You can only assume. I believe that Christmas was instituted by God through His Church. I know others who believe the same, can you prove He did not?



You did not even come close to answering my question, but i will answer yours in a minute...

You say that God instituted xmas thru His Church (Roman Catholic, of course...)...  Why would He do thats when He had already said in His Word to NOT DO THE THINGS OF THE HEATHEN...

Jeremiah 10 1:8
 1Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel: 

 2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 

3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 

*4They deck it with silver and with gold*; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. 

 5They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. 

 6Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might. 

 7Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee. 

 8But they are altogether brutish and foolish: *the stock is a doctrine of vanities*

So God right here tells us to not cut down a tree, deck it with silver and gold and bring it into our homes, as the heathen do....  If God tell us not to do this... then how can sinful man, 2000 years later come along and tell is that is ok to cut a tree, put it in our home and deck it with silver and gold???  If God really is telling us to celebrate xmas thru the Catholic church then God would be contradicting Himself...  God cannot contradict Himself ever...  God never changes.

So it is impossible for man to come along 2000 years (or anytime) and say that God told them to do this, thereby changing a command that God instituted 2000 years before...  That goes back to what I said before... sinful, infallible man, cannot add to or take away from the Word of God... when man does, you end up with xmas, and selling magazines door to door, and snake worship, and all of the other false stuff that is out there... your "Church" can no more make up "God approved" holy days than the man in the moon...  God does not approve of sinful man adding anything to His Word...  its called idolatry.  If God wanted us to make up lies about a fat man in a red suit and lie to our kids, He would have told us, thru His Word, not your church or any church.  The True Church (Body of Christ) does not make up holy days...  They obey the commands already set forth thru His Word. Sinful man can nothing right unless we are filled with the Holy Spirit, and when that happens and man actually does something right... the Holy Spirit gets all the glory, not us...  So i answered your question... Jer 10:1-8 proves xmas is an abomination to God.  plust its filled with lies...

so please answer my last question....  How does a perfect, holy God approve all of the lies of xmas?


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

Why would He allow St. Paul to use a pagan poem to teach about Christ? Why would He allow Moses to use a golden serpent? 

He gave His Church the power to bind and loose, He was the one who instituted it you should take it up with Him.

I fully believe He did and I will follow those teachings from now until the end of time.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> Why would He allow St. Paul to use a pagan poem to teach about Christ? Why would He allow Moses to use a golden serpent?
> 
> He gave His Church the power to bind and loose, He was the one who instituted it you should take it up with Him.
> 
> I fully believe He did and I will follow those teachings from now until the end of time.



Moses and Paul were fully inspired by God.  Again, you cannot answer the question at hand nor can anyone else who celebrates xmas... because there is only one answer and it condemns the god of your belly...

God cannot nor will He ever condone and allow lying for any reason...  every person who lies to their kids about a fat man in a suit will be held accountable for their lies.  I used to do it and I told my kids those lies too, but I repented from it and God has forgiven me.   But there are millions who will go to their graves with the lies of xmas unrepented and on their souls...

btw, "binding and loosing" was given to all of the Apostles to use but only because it was "already done in Heaven"...  it was not given to a "church"... for a sinful man to come along 500 years after Jesus and say that he has power to bind and lose is blasphemy.


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

Big10point said:


> so please answer my last question....  How does a perfect, holy God approve all of the lies of xmas?



Well because Christmas is not a lie. Tah Dah!

Okay well this got boring three post ago

Once again

Merry Christmas All


Dóminus vobíscum 

Fin


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 22, 2008)

hey 10Pt,

I agree with you that xmas is a pagan celebration.  

I just want to know if you realize that what you are basically saying is that:  you have been inspired by god as to the validity of the KJV and anybody that disagrees with you is obviously not a REAL Christian?


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

If you want a response fine

You have set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner of what God wants, who is and who is not going to He ll, and how to interpret scripture ( and yes I know the Holy Spirit interprets for you, well I believe the same thing, and so does everyone else on this board who either agrees or disagrees with you). You have become Pope Bruce. Go back read you have not answered anything either, we both answered the main question of this thread earlier. Yes I believe Christmas is a Holy Day and was instituted by God through His Church. You do not. I do not need to answer beyond that.

I hope you have a Merry Christmas and celebrate Christ everyday 

Dóminus vobíscum


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> hey 10Pt,
> 
> I agree with you that xmas is a pagan celebration.
> 
> I just want to know if you realize that what you are basically saying is that:  you have been inspired by god as to the validity of the KJV and anybody that disagrees with you is obviously not a REAL Christian?



I am as uninspired as you can get and deserving of helll. I never said that if people use another Bible besides the KJ, they are not a Christian...  thats crazy.  If you research the Bibles you will find that the KJ is the closest to the original manuscripts.  So why use a different Bible? Satan is doing what he can to mislead people and offering all of these different versions is another way to deceive.  If somebody disagrees with me, that means nothing... but if they disagree with the Word of God... thats a different story.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

PJason said:


> If you want a response fine
> 
> You have set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner of what God wants, who is and who is not going to He ll, and how to interpret scripture ( and yes I know the Holy Spirit interprets for you, well I believe the same thing, and so does everyone else on this board who either agrees or disagrees with you). You have become Pope Bruce.  Go back read you have not answered anything either, we both answered the main question of this thread earlier. Yes I believe Christmas is a Holy Day and was instituted by God through His Church. You do not. I do not need to answer beyond that.
> 
> ...


----------



## SHMELTON (Dec 22, 2008)

PJ, you ask about god letting us celebrating pagan rituals? Do you know why Arron did not get to see the holy land, nor Moses got to step foot in it?  your answer lies in the reason fo this.


----------



## SHMELTON (Dec 22, 2008)

Here is a little more proof that god does not agree with the holiday.

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. 

 3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. 

 4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

Jeremiah 10:2-4 (King James Version)


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

SHMELTONS_BOYS said:


> PJ, you ask about god letting us celebrating pagan rituals?



Is this a statement or a question?



SHMELTONS_BOYS said:


> Do you know why Aaron did not get to see the holy land, nor Moses got to step foot in it?  Your answer lies in the reason for this.



Well let’s see Moses was told by God to speak to the rock, he instead stuck the rock and disobeyed. Moses and Aaron took credit for the miracle of the water from rock and they did it publicly. When we celebrate Christmas there is no credit given to anyone but God all the glory is for Him alone. We celebrate and adore our Savior we “give glory to God in the highest”.


----------



## PJason (Dec 22, 2008)

SHMELTONS_BOYS said:


> Here is a little more proof that god does not agree with the holiday.
> 
> Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
> 
> ...



If you believe that Christmas is man made then you would right. However I do not believe that Christmas was instituted by man but by God.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 22, 2008)

SHMELTONS_BOYS said:


> Here is a little more proof that god does not agree with the holiday.
> 
> Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
> 
> ...






shmelton,
not even the Word of God will convince a religious person that they could be in error... to religious people, the Word of God always takes a back seat to their church's man made doctrines, traditions or their leader's doctrines.

Mark 7:6-8 
 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 

 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 

 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, (Jer 10:1-5) ye hold the tradition of men...


----------



## FishHunt (Dec 22, 2008)

How it came about makes for interesting reading but all that really matters is what Christmas means to you personally.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 22, 2008)

discounthunter said:


> to not use xmas because YOU cant stand it, is personal.



Whatever. I did not tell him that he could not use "X"mas.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 22, 2008)

Perception is everything, especially when it comes from a position of authority.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Dec 22, 2008)

well let me add my 2 cents

we no longer as a family celebrate Christmas due to its orgins and our convictions that it falls under 1 Corinthians 10:20-23.
Our celebration of the Lord's birth, his death, and his resurrection is every Lord's day. 
Here's a link from another non-believer in Christmas
The Top 10 Reasons Why I Don't Celebrate Christmas


----------



## farmasis (Dec 22, 2008)

Big10point said:


> thank you for teaching me something... doesnt change anything.... you can never put x back in xmas because x was never in xmas...


 
Then who was that baby?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Then who was that baby?



Are you refering to the baby Jesus that was not born on Dec 25th but sometime in the fall??  If thats the baby you're talking about, He grew up and became the Savior of the world. He is seated at the right hand of the Father. He saved His children and me from the pits of helll with His grace...  He also commanded us to not celebrate pagan unholy days like the heathens  (Jer 10:1-6)...  And to not follow the vain traditions of men while breaking His commandment  (Mark 7:8)...  And to NOT add anything to His Word such as non-inspired holy days (Rev 22:18, 19)... He also commanded us to never tell a lie, which means not telling my kids there is a satan claus...  And commanded Christians to be the light of the World, not the xmas lights of the world. How is a Christian being the light of the world, as He commanded, when they are lying to their kids about satan claus?? and then all of the non-believers witness this... and say to themselves, "why should i be like those lying Christians?"  Look at Rev 21:8 

Revelation 21:8 
8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and *all liars*—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

I did not see anywhere in that verse that says "all lyars" except those parents telling their kids there is a satan claus...

He also commanded us to not be worldly and there is nothing more wordly than xmas...   

So are we talking about the same baby Jesus?


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

O Emmanuel, Rex et legifer noster, exspectatio gentium, et Salvator earum: veni ad salvandum nos Domine Deus noster.


O Emmanuel, God with us, our King and lawgiver, the expected of the nations and their Savior: come to save us, O Lord our God.​


----------



## PWalls (Dec 23, 2008)

Wow. "Satan" Claus.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Wow. "Satan" Claus.



thats right...

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0196.htm 
http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/santa.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/SantaClause.html
http://www.hvbdc.com/links/Jesus.html


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Dec 23, 2008)

discounthunter said:


> to not use xmas because YOU cant stand it, is personal.


 

Well, I consider the use of Xmas an insult to Christians....

DB BB


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> ....I did not see anywhere in that verse that says "all lyars" except those parents telling their kids there is a satan claus...



Sweet Mary Mother God........


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 23, 2008)

Obviously Christmas is not for all Christians.

If you can be blessed and worship God thru celebrating and remembering His birthday, it will be a good thing.

If your Christian heart distresses you in regard to the worldly nature of December 25 and you believe you would be doing a disservice to God in observing it, you would do well to worship God only as you believe God would accept.

Does that make since?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Obviously Christmas is not for all Christians.
> 
> If you can be blessed and worship God thru celebrating and remembering His birthday, it will be a good thing.
> 
> ...



Yes, more than telling kids the evil of "Satan" Claus.  My kids went and saw him and they got a pitchfork and bag of brimstone.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 23, 2008)

Ronnie T said:


> Does that make since?



Yes, it does.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

I wonder how God responds to the millions of people (that die and go before Him for judgement) that tell Him that it was ok to lie to their kids about santa claus because a sinful man said it was okay...?



glad i dont have to worry about that....


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> I wonder how God responds to the millions of people (that die and go before Him for judgement) that tell Him that it was ok to lie to their kids about santa claus because a sinful man said it was okay...?
> 
> 
> 
> glad i dont have to worry about that....



Does it make rings?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Does it make rings?


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


>




When you walk on water does it make rings?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> When you walk on water does it make rings?



only the pope can walk on water


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> only the pope can walk on water




You are absolutely correct the first Pope did walk on water at least for a short time.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Does it make rings?





PJason said:


> When you walk on water does it make rings?


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> only the pope can walk on water



Which one?  There were 266

St. Peter (32-67) 
St. Linus (67-76) 
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) 
St. Clement I (88-97) 
St. Evaristus (97-105) 
St. Alexander I (105-115) 
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I 
St. Telesphorus (125-136) 
St. Hyginus (136-140) 
St. Pius I (140-155) 
St. Anicetus (155-166) 
St. Soter (166-175) 
St. Eleutherius (175-189) 
St. Victor I (189-199) 
St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236) 
St. Urban I (222-30) 
St. Pontain (230-35) 
St. Anterus (235-36) 
St. Fabian (236-50) 
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251) 
St. Lucius I (253-54) 
St. Stephen I (254-257) 
St. Sixtus II (257-258) 
St. Dionysius (260-268) 
St. Felix I (269-274) 
St. Eutychian (275-283) 
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius 
St. Marcellinus (296-304) 
St. Marcellus I (308-309) 
St. Eusebius (309 or 310) 
St. Miltiades (311-14) 
St. Sylvester I (314-35) 
St. Marcus (336) 
St. Julius I (337-52) 
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365) 
St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367) 
St. Siricius (384-99) 
St. Anastasius I (399-401) 
St. Innocent I (401-17) 
St. Zosimus (417-18) 
St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419) 
St. Celestine I (422-32) 
St. Sixtus III (432-40) 
St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61) 
St. Hilarius (461-68) 
St. Simplicius (468-83) 
St. Felix III (II) (483-92) 
St. Gelasius I (492-96) 
Anastasius II (496-98) 
St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501) 
St. Hormisdas (514-23) 
St. John I (523-26) 
St. Felix IV (III) (526-30) 
Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530) 
John II (533-35) 
St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I 
St. Silverius (536-37) 
Vigilius (537-55) 
Pelagius I (556-61) 
John III (561-74) 
Benedict I (575-79) 
Pelagius II (579-90) 
St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604) 
Sabinian (604-606) 
Boniface III (607) 
St. Boniface IV (608-15) 
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18) 
Boniface V (619-25) 
Honorius I (625-38) 
Severinus (640) 
John IV (640-42) 
Theodore I (642-49) 
St. Martin I (649-55) 
St. Eugene I (655-57) 
St. Vitalian (657-72) 
Adeodatus (II) (672-76) 
Donus (676-78) 
St. Agatho (678-81) 
St. Leo II (682-83) 
St. Benedict II (684-85) 
John V (685-86) 
Conon (686-87) 
St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687) 
John VI (701-05) 
John VII (705-07) 
Sisinnius (708) 
Constantine (708-15) 
St. Gregory II (715-31) 
St. Gregory III (731-41) 
St. Zachary (741-52) 
Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him 
Stephen III (752-57) 
St. Paul I (757-67) 
Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767) 
Adrian I (772-95) 
St. Leo III (795-816) 
Stephen V (816-17) 
St. Paschal I (817-24) 
Eugene II (824-27) 
Valentine (827) 
Gregory IV (827-44) 
Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855) 
St. Leo IV (847-55) 
Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855) 
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67) 
Adrian II (867-72) 
John VIII (872-82) 
Marinus I (882-84) 
St. Adrian III (884-85) 
Stephen VI (885-91) 
Formosus (891-96) 
Boniface VI (896) 
Stephen VII (896-97) 
Romanus (897) 
Theodore II (897) 
John IX (898-900) 
Benedict IV (900-03) 
Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904) 
Sergius III (904-11) 
Anastasius III (911-13) 
Lando (913-14) 
John X (914-28) 
Leo VI (928) 
Stephen VIII (929-31) 
John XI (931-35) 
Leo VII (936-39) 
Stephen IX (939-42) 
Marinus II (942-46) 
Agapetus II (946-55) 
John XII (955-63) 
Leo VIII (963-64) 
Benedict V (964) 
John XIII (965-72) 
Benedict VI (973-74) 
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985) 
John XIV (983-84) 
John XV (985-96) 
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998) 
Sylvester II (999-1003) 
John XVII (1003) 
John XVIII (1003-09) 
Sergius IV (1009-12) 
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012) 
John XIX (1024-32) 
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored 
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope 
Benedict IX (1045) 
Gregory VI (1045-46) 
Clement II (1046-47) 
Benedict IX (1047-48) 
Damasus II (1048) 
St. Leo IX (1049-54) 
Victor II (1055-57) 
Stephen X (1057-58) 
Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058) 
Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072) 
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III"), antipope (1080-1100) 
Blessed Victor III (1086-87) 
Blessed Urban II (1088-99) 
Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100) 
Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII"), antipope (1118) 
Callistus II (1119-24) 
Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124) 
Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV") (1138), antipopes (1138) 
Celestine II (1143-44) 
Lucius II (1144-45) 
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53) 
Anastasius IV (1153-54) 
Adrian IV (1154-59) 
Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV") (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes 
Lucius III (1181-85) 
Urban III (1185-87) 
Gregory VIII (1187) 
Clement III (1187-91) 
Celestine III (1191-98) 
Innocent III (1198-1216) 
Honorius III (1216-27) 
Gregory IX (1227-41) 
Celestine IV (1241) 
Innocent IV (1243-54) 
Alexander IV (1254-61) 
Urban IV (1261-64) 
Clement IV (1265-68) 
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76) 
Blessed Innocent V (1276) 
Adrian V (1276) 
John XXI (1276-77) 
Nicholas III (1277-80) 
Martin IV (1281-85) 
Honorius IV (1285-87) 
Nicholas IV (1288-92) 
St. Celestine V (1294) 
Boniface VIII (1294-1303) 
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04) 
Clement V (1305-14) 
John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330) 
Benedict XII (1334-42) 
Clement VI (1342-52) 
Innocent VI (1352-62) 
Blessed Urban V (1362-70) 
Gregory XI (1370-78) 
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII"), antipope (1378-1394) 
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII") (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes 
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), antipopes 
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII") (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII") (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V") (1409-1410), antipopes 
Martin V (1417-31) 
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V"), antipope (1439-1449) 
Nicholas V (1447-55) 
Callistus III (1455-58) 
Pius II (1458-64) 
Paul II (1464-71) 
Sixtus IV (1471-84) 
Innocent VIII (1484-92) 
Alexander VI (1492-1503) 
Pius III (1503) 
Julius II (1503-13) 
Leo X (1513-21) 
Adrian VI (1522-23) 
Clement VII (1523-34) 
Paul III (1534-49) 
Julius III (1550-55) 
Marcellus II (1555) 
Paul IV (1555-59) 
Pius IV (1559-65) 
St. Pius V (1566-72) 
Gregory XIII (1572-85) 
Sixtus V (1585-90) 
Urban VII (1590) 
Gregory XIV (1590-91) 
Innocent IX (1591) 
Clement VIII (1592-1605) 
Leo XI (1605) 
Paul V (1605-21) 
Gregory XV (1621-23) 
Urban VIII (1623-44) 
Innocent X (1644-55) 
Alexander VII (1655-67) 
Clement IX (1667-69) 
Clement X (1670-76) 
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89) 
Alexander VIII (1689-91) 
Innocent XII (1691-1700) 
Clement XI (1700-21) 
Innocent XIII (1721-24) 
Benedict XIII (1724-30) 
Clement XII (1730-40) 
Benedict XIV (1740-58) 
Clement XIII (1758-69) 
Clement XIV (1769-74) 
Pius VI (1775-99) 
Pius VII (1800-23) 
Leo XII (1823-29) 
Pius VIII (1829-30) 
Gregory XVI (1831-46) 
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78) 
Leo XIII (1878-1903) 
St. Pius X (1903-14)

Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date 
Pius XI (1922-39) 
Pius XII (1939-58) 
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63) 
Paul VI (1963-78) 
John Paul I (1978) 
John Paul II (1978-2005) 
Benedict XVI (2005—)


----------



## PWalls (Dec 23, 2008)

That's a lot of Popes.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

PWalls said:


> That's a lot of Popes.



266 to be exact


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Which one?  There were 266
> 
> All of them can walk on water... They are all infallible... kinda like in the 1600's when the pope threatened to kill Galileo but just thru him in jail for teaching the earth was round and revolved around the sun...


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

I appreciate you listing all the popes for me that sure did make me spiritually stronger


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> dawg2 said:
> 
> 
> > Which one?  There were 266
> ...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> I appreciate you listing all the popes for me that sure did make me spiritually stronger



It does for me.  It shows an unbroken line of succession to reinforce a church that doesn't splinter of into "1st," "2nd," or other miscellaneous flavors.  Similar to a pedigree for a good dog.  Tried, proven, and documented.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

In other words you are saying the Church that has Popes is the only church that is not just a good tasting flavor to mankind


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> In other words you are saying the Church that has Popes is the only church that is not just a good tasting flavor to mankind



Huh?  You lost me......


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

are you saying the catholic church is the only church? You will only find popes in that church


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> are you saying the catholic church is the only church? You will only find popes in that church



No, there are many Chruches, all a branch from the tree of Catholicism.  They are all similar, related, but different.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

My MY I feel so foolish now, all these years I thought I was a member of Christ Church but you know me I am just a dum ole country boy, no where in my bible does it mention Catholic, or pope and I have read it all the way through. Guess I just have the wrong version.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> My MY I feel so foolish now, all these years I thought I was a member of Christ Church but you know me I am just a dum ole country boy, no where in my bible does it mention Catholic, or pope and I have read it all the way through. Guess I just have the wrong version.



Never heard of Peter?  Go read some more.  Start here: John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter.  To deny Peter was never in Rome, would show your prejudices overriding historical facts. <------Not meant as an insult


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> My MY I feel so foolish now, all these years I thought I was a member of Christ Church but you know me I am just a dum ole country boy, no where in my bible does it mention Catholic, or pope and I have read it all the way through. Guess I just have the wrong version.



...As a second point, the Bible does not mention "Christ Church" either, that I recall, nor are there any historical / archeological facts nor evidence they were ever in Rome or anywhere in Christ's vicinity.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah for upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of he11 will not prevail over it


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> Blessed art thou Simon son of Jonah for upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of he11 will not prevail over it



Also known as: PETER


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

There were a lot of the apostles in Rome but There is no hint that Peter was a pope. The church was built on the confession that Peter made that Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God. The rock that the church was built on was certainly not Peter.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> There were a lot of the apostles in Rome but There is no hint that Peter was a pope. The church was built on the confession that Peter made that Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God. The rock that the church was built on was certainly not Peter.




Sounds very MUSLIM.  Do you have scripture to back that up?


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

Muslim!!! you have got to be kidding, sounds Christian to me.
You are the one that cannot show me a hint of a pope in the intire bible and the word catholic is not even mentioned. Christ is the founder of the church. Jesus Christ. The son of God. He and only He can forgive sins. Me back up what I say, do you even read the Bible??????? I am ok with you being a Catholic but Please Brother don't tell me I am a splinter of the Catholic Church. How arrogent can you get


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

I will not be on here anymore. It has gone to far when someone calls me a muslim. I wish I could buy some of you guys for what you were worth and sell you for what you think you are worth. It is a sin for me to be here because I have unchristian thoughts when I am here sometimes. Like not when I think of all of this my mind drifts to the south end of a north bound donkey.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Big10point said:
> 
> 
> > "Infallible" does not mean walk on water, unlike yourself.  However, since you find such "favour" under King James I of England's Bible, please do research his biography.  He seemed to have preferred the company of men over women....see 6th paragraph down, or you can do your own research if you like. It is common knowledge.
> ...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> Muslim!!! you have got to be kidding, sounds Christian to me.
> You are the one that cannot show me a hint of a pope in the intire bible and the word catholic is not even mentioned. Christ is the founder of the church. Jesus Christ. The son of God. He and only He can forgive sins. Me back up what I say, do you even read the Bible??????? I am ok with you being a Catholic but Please Brother don't tell me I am a splinter of the Catholic Church. How arrogent can you get



Actually, study Islam.  They believe Peter was following the Devil and they (Muslims) believed in Jesus as a Prophet.  So yes, I would say those that deny Peter, have a commonality with Islam.  Whether you like it or not it is true.  Maybe you will understand what I meant, not as an insult though.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> It does for me. It shows an unbroken line of succession to reinforce a church that doesn't splinter of into "1st," "2nd," or other miscellaneous flavors. Similar to a pedigree for a good dog. Tried, proven, and documented.


 
If you are looking for a dog, a pedigree is important. However, for a relationship with God, adoption is what is needed.

5 he<SUP>[a]</SUP> predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— (1 Cor)


  5 For you have heard my vows, O God; 
    you have given me the heritage of those who fear your name. (Psalms 61)


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> If you are looking for a dog, a pedigree is important. However, for a relationship with God, adoption is what is needed.
> 
> 5 he<SUP>[a]</SUP> predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— (1 Cor)
> 
> ...



The Bible is a "pedigree" of God's instructions.  Would you follow a "Bible" or religion that someone just dribbled out and put in your lap with no historical "pedigree" ??? Based on your posts, I know you do not.

"Pedigree" is used as an "analogy."


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Actually, study Islam. They believe Peter was following the Devil and they (Muslims) believed in Jesus as a Prophet. So yes, I would say those that deny Peter, have a commonality with Islam. Whether you like it or not it is true. Maybe you will understand what I meant, not as an insult though.


 
Christ used Peter at Pentecost to kick off his church. I think that is undeniable. Was Peter a Pope? No. At least not at the time used by God. Peter was not alone in developing the church.

19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner_stone,_ 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Eph 2)


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> The Bible is a "pedigree" of God's instructions. Would you follow a "Bible" or religion that someone just dribbled out and put in your lap with no historical "pedigree" ??? Based on your posts, I know you do not.


 
The deal is that it is not man, but God who makes the pedigree through adoption. Just like 1/2 or so of the NT being written by Paul who was directly converted by God.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 23, 2008)

Sorry but I had to come back one time. Sir you are not intelligent enough to insult me. You fall in a class that I would not even mention here. It is people like you that are ignorant of God's word that has lead to the problems that Christianity is having. Listen to me and listen good. I did not deny Peter. I said I could not find in my bible where he was called Pope Peter. Oh by the way do you wear a cloak made of sheeps wool?


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> so you prefer westcott & horts per-versions...?



No I prefer the Vulgate was actually written from the original text or the Douay-Rheims which is the English translation of the Vulgate, and was the base upon which the King James writers laid their English translation.


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> Oh by the way do you wear a cloak made of sheeps wool?



I have a nice sweater


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Paul who was directly converted by God.



Who still had to be baptized and have hands laid on him before he could go out and preach.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> Muslim!!! you have got to be kidding, sounds Christian to me.
> You are the one that cannot show me a hint of a pope in the intire bible and the word catholic is not even mentioned. Christ is the founder of the church. Jesus Christ. The son of God. He and only He can forgive sins. Me back up what I say, do you even read the Bible??????? I am ok with you being a Catholic but Please Brother don't tell me I am a splinter of the Catholic Church. How arrogent can you get



deacon, just pray for them... God has blinded them because they love not the Truth...
2 Thess 2-
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

no they do not read their Bibles. Reading the Bible will make you a Bible Believer, and anyone who believes a sinful man can ever be infallible is not a Bible Believer...


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> Actually, study Islam.  They believe Peter was following the Devil and they (Muslims) believed in Jesus as a Prophet.  So yes, I would say those that deny Peter, have a commonality with Islam.  Whether you like it or not it is true.  Maybe you will understand what I meant, not as an insult though.


"deny Peter..."
this statement could very well be the dumbest thing that i have ever heard in my entire life... 
Matthew 16:23 

 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
I guess Jesus was muslim, since He denied Peter...?

Gal 2:11
11 When Peter came to Antioch, I (Paul) opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong...

I guess Paul was a muslim too...?


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Who still had to be baptized and have hands laid on him before he could go out and preach.



So Paul was catholic?


----------



## PJason (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> So Paul was catholic?



Yes


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> 266 to be exact


 

Are you sure?

There have been 265 popes of the Roman Catholic Church, starting with the Apostle Peter, the first pope of Rome, and leading up to Benedict XVI, the current pope. 
http://catholicism.about.com/od/popes/Popes.htm


The first pope of the Catholic Church was St. Peter, the apostle.
Since then, there have been a total of 266 popes in a continuous line of apostolic succession spanning almost 2000 years. The current pope (#266) is Benedict XVI.
http://www.catholicoutpost.com/holymoly/?p=24

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0000.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

Why the desparity? Catholics seem to be so proud of that unbroken line, don't we know for sure?


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> "deny Peter..."
> this statement could very well be the dumbest thing that i have ever heard in my entire life...
> Matthew 16:23
> 
> ...


 

touche' 10 point


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Who still had to be baptized and have hands laid on him before he could go out and preach.


 
We do the same.


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Gal 2:11
> 11 When Peter came to Antioch, I (Paul) opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong...


 
WHOA!

Proof that Peter was not a pope?

Ya know, infallibility of the pope and all.


----------



## Big10point (Dec 23, 2008)

PJason said:


> Yes



I guess that means, Jesus, God, Peter and all of the apostles were catholic too?  Since catholic was never mentioned in the Bible... how and when were these people informed of their conversion from Jew to catholicism...? Because there conversion to catholicism was never mentioed in the Bible... Did Peter go and divorce his wife since he was to become the pope?  When he became pope in 32 ad and then wrote the Book of Peter around 65ad...  how come he failed to mention in the book, that he had been the pope of rome the last 33 years???  How come he never mentioned Rome at all... How come when Paul addresses all of the Apostles that were in Rome (around 60ad), he never mentioned the name of Peter the pope...  he never mentioned the pope one time in the Book of Romans...   seems strange that Paul would leave out the great pope Peter of rome, maybe because he Peter had a wife, and they didnt want to bring shame upon the papacy by having a married pope..  Even tho God commands the Pastors to have 1 wife... Paul condemns pope Peter to his face for teaching bad doctrines...  seems strange that pope Peter would allow cardinal Paul to  speak down to him... 

Guys, i can appreciate your sincerety for your faith. I wish all people had the same zeal for True Christianity as you do for your religion...  The Bible destroys every false religion, including yours.  but since you do not love the Truth, you will continue to be blinded to the Truth...   2 Thes 2:10...  God is blinding you the way He blinded pharoh so there is nothing i can do to help you...


----------



## farmasis (Dec 23, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Are you refering to the baby Jesus that was not born on Dec 25th but sometime in the fall?? If thats the baby you're talking about, He grew up and became the Savior of the world. He is seated at the right hand of the Father. He saved His children and me from the pits of helll with His grace... He also commanded us to not celebrate pagan unholy days like the heathens (Jer 10:1-6)... And to not follow the vain traditions of men while breaking His commandment (Mark 7:8)... And to NOT add anything to His Word such as non-inspired holy days (Rev 22:18, 19)... He also commanded us to never tell a lie, which means not telling my kids there is a satan claus... And commanded Christians to be the light of the World, not the xmas lights of the world. How is a Christian being the light of the world, as He commanded, when they are lying to their kids about satan claus?? and then all of the non-believers witness this... and say to themselves, "why should i be like those lying Christians?" Look at Rev 21:8
> 
> Revelation 21:8
> 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and *all liars*—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
> ...


 
Yes, that is the same one.
He was there at the first Christmas no matter what day it was.

Let's see....
I don't lie to my children about Santa (Check)
I don't celebrate unholy pagan days (Check)
I don't break his commandments to follow vain traditions of men (Check)
I haven't added to his word (Check)
I don't teach my children to be wordly (Check)

Whew!

On to my Christmas celebration!


----------



## PJason (Dec 24, 2008)

Big10point said:


> I guess that means, Jesus, God, Peter and all of the apostles were catholic too?



Since the whole of the Church is Catholic then yes.



Big10point said:


> Since catholic was never mentioned in the Bible... how and when were these people informed of their conversion from Jew to catholicism...?



Do you use the term Trinity? Trying to base your argument off the idea the word Catholic not being in the Bible is pretty weak. Just as the word Trinity is not said in the Bible, the idea of the Trinity just the idea of a Catholic Church can be seen throughout the Bible.



Big10point said:


> Because there conversion to Catholicism was never mentioed in the Bible... Did Peter go and divorce his wife since he was to become the pope?



No of course he did not divorce his wife, divorce is expressly forbidden in the Bible. Notice that St. Peter and Christ where served by St. Peter’s mother-in-law. Even if Christ had just saved her mothers, the chance that St. Peter’s wife would allow her mother to serve Christ and her husband is unlikely. The common explanation is that St. Peter’s wife was dead and his mother-in-law had taken over the household. 




Big10point said:


> When he became pope in 32 ad and then wrote the Book of Peter around 65ad...  how come he failed to mention in the book, that he had been the pope of Rome the last 33 years???  How come he never mentioned Rome at all... How come when Paul addresses all of the Apostles that were in Rome (around 60ad), he never mentioned the name of Peter the pope...  he never mentioned the pope one time in the Book of Romans...   seems strange that Paul would leave out the great pope Peter of Rome, maybe because he Peter had a wife, and they didnt want to bring shame upon the papacy by having a married pope..



“The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark”  1 Pet. 5:13 

Can anyone tell me what early Christian code for Rome was?




Big10point said:


> Even tho God commands the Pastors to have 1 wife... Paul condemns pope Peter to his face for teaching bad doctrines...  seems strange that pope Peter would allow cardinal Paul to  speak down to him...



There is no “command” that a Pastor be married. St. Paul is arguing discipline not doctrine big difference. Heck I could speak down to the Pope if I wanted to and I have disagreed with Popes on matter of discipline. The doctrine of infallibility does not mean the Pope is perfect, it means when the Pope teaches et cathedra on matters of dogma and doctrine his teachings are infallible. 



Big10point said:


> Guys, i can appreciate your sincerety for your faith. I wish all people had the same zeal for True Christianity as you do for your religion...  The Bible destroys every false religion, including yours.  but since you do not love the Truth, you will continue to be blinded to the Truth...   2 Thes 2:10...  God is blinding you the way He blinded pharoh so there is nothing i can do to help you...



It is kind of hard to believe you are even halfway sincere when you pat people of the back with a knife in your hand, but that’s okay I have on my armor.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 24, 2008)

farmasis said:


> Are you sure?
> 
> There have been 265 popes of the Roman Catholic Church, starting with the Apostle Peter, the first pope of Rome, and leading up to Benedict XVI, the current pope.
> http://catholicism.about.com/od/popes/Popes.htm
> ...



The disparity is more than likely due to Stephen II (752). Because his death preceded his consecration as Pope, he is left off some Pope lists.  If it makes you feel better, I will say 265 Popes.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 24, 2008)

thedeacon said:


> My MY I feel so foolish now, all these years I thought I was a member of Christ Church but you know me I am just a dum ole country boy, no where in my bible does it mention Catholic, or pope and I have read it all the way through. Guess I just have the wrong version.





dawg2 said:


> ...As a second point, the Bible does not mention "Christ Church" either, that I recall, nor are there any historical / archeological facts nor evidence they were ever in Rome or anywhere in Christ's vicinity.




Never answered this one....


----------



## PWalls (Dec 24, 2008)

Is there any chance this thread is going to last. Looks like it has devolved finally into another Catholic bashing thread. I guess I went to bed too early last night. 

Please re-direct the thread back to "Christmas" where it started or start another one if someone wants to discuss the difference between the RCC and Protestant churches (like we haven't done that already) and keep it civil (which it normally doesn't stay that way).


----------



## PJason (Dec 24, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Please re-direct the thread back to "Christmas" where it started



Merry Christmas you cheese eating surrender monkey


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 24, 2008)

PJason said:


> When you walk on water does it make rings?


----------



## PWalls (Dec 24, 2008)

Merry Christmas to you to PJ.

I like spider monkeys.


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 24, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Merry Christmas to you to PJ.
> 
> I like spider monkeys.



I don't.  One bit me when I was a kid


----------



## farmasis (Dec 24, 2008)

PWalls said:


> Please re-direct the thread back to "Christmas" where it started


 
You are right PW.

Merry Christmas to my Catholic brothers and to my Christian brothers who find Christmas offensive, Seasons greetings.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 24, 2008)

Big10point said:


> Guys, i can appreciate your sincerety for your faith. I wish all people had the same zeal for _True Christianity _as you do for your religion...  The Bible destroys every false religion, including yours.  but since you do not love the Truth, you will continue to be blinded to the Truth...   2 Thes 2:10...  God is blinding you the way He blinded pharoh so there is nothing i can do to help you...



 Precious moments......


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 24, 2008)

ambush80 said:


> Precious moments......



That floats your boat, doesn't it


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 24, 2008)

Ahhh, another thread that turned into a Catholic or any denomination for that matter, Bashing thread.

It's always fun to kick the crap out of something ain't it?

Maybe Christ is bored today and dont have much to do today, Ya'll think he might take sides?

He probably would, he likes to kick the crap out of people also don't he?

Well.. don't he?

Don't be shy, He's got your back, don't He?You know your wingman won't run out on you in a spiritual thrashin

Well... will he

When's round 2? I want to invite other people to watch and maybe even sell a ticket or 2.


Have a merry Christmas everyone


I dont know wether I ought to  or  because I sit around and jump in also


----------



## jmharris23 (Dec 24, 2008)

Well boys and girls I am going to a family Christmas party and when I get home if it has devolved back into a Catholic bashing I am gonna lock this puppy down. 

With that being said Well wishes and Merry Christmas to all of you(even the ones who don't believe in Christmas)

Of course this is coming from a heathen pastor who likes Christmas and Santa Clause and preaches out a of a NIV Bible. So take it for whats its worth!


----------



## Big10point (Dec 24, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Well boys and girls I am going to a family Christmas party and when I get home if it has devolved back into a Catholic bashing I am gonna lock this puppy down.
> 
> With that being said Well wishes and Merry Christmas to all of you(even the ones who don't believe in Christmas)
> 
> Of course this is coming from a heathen pastor who likes Christmas and Santa Clause and preaches out a of a NIV Bible. So take it for whats its worth!





peace on earth and good will to all men...


----------



## dawg2 (Dec 24, 2008)

jmharris23 said:


> Well boys and girls I am going to a family Christmas party and when I get home if it has devolved back into a Catholic bashing I am gonna lock this puppy down.
> 
> With that being said Well wishes and Merry Christmas to all of you(even the ones who don't believe in Christmas)
> 
> Of course this is coming from a heathen pastor who likes Christmas and Santa Clause and preaches out a of a NIV Bible. So take it for whats its worth!




You are no heathen, that has been well established.  Merry Christmas and for the record, "satan claus" was never mentioned at mass tonight, only the birth of Jesus.


----------



## Big7 (Dec 25, 2008)

Man - I'm glad I missed this one.
I'm running low on blood pressure pills!


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 26, 2008)

dawg2 said:


> That floats your boat, doesn't it



Exposure of zealotry?  Yes it sure does. I only hope someone will learn something from it.


----------

