I believe it is possible for God to use common knowledge to promote His own concepts.
Although you have nothing to say that is possible other than your belief.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I believe it is possible for God to use common knowledge to promote His own concepts.
I believe its a catholic ideal. Just like depicting Jesus as white man with long blonde hair. I do not celebrate Christmas either for Santa or even for Jesus. Because everyday is a Jesus filled Christmas celebration for the true believer. Its hypocrisy to only go to church on easter and christmas. Both with origin pagan ideals.Since Jesus Christ, at no time in his life, advocated the celebration of his birth, and only commanded remembrance of his death and resurrection, who, when, and why do we do so today?
In fact, xmas (CHRISTmas) has turned into a ritual of self indulgence, excess of drinking, buying things of more worthlessness than usefulness, pandering to commercialism, and creating a great deal of monetary debt.
It has now even become a time for ‘celebrating’ Pets, creatures, things…! Worshipping the Golden Calf of contemporaryism!!
But be that as it may!
When did Xmas first start (St Nicholas in Norway thinking to give presents to the poor children who otherwise received nothing but a stick of candy (luxury!)?)
How did it catch on (Pepsi cola?)?
Why has it strayed so far the Christian intention?
I attended a Friends meeting for a while and we had a pagan attendee who celebrated the winter solstice but not Christmas. I never went to one of his solstice parties because the solstice is meaningless to me.
Why has it strayed so far the Christian intention?
Nothing to do with Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, Mithras, Norse paganism, Constantine or whatever common internet tropes that are often proposed as its origin.
The authority (or rather, command) for Sunday worship came from Emperor Constantine. The command was directed at the new Christian faith but not to the Jews and was designed to meld in with the Roman day of worship of their Sun God, ‘Sol’.@Soapy
My understanding is that teh apostles ordained deacons, presbyters, and bishops to succeed them. They chose men the believed they could trust to reliably teach the gospel. Remember that in the early centuries there was no New Testament. Christians relied utterly on the bishop making sure things were properly transmitted orally.
Once you agree that the bishops had such authority, it only makes sense that you are going to follow what the bishops determined in terms of new practices, such as replacing a Saturday Sabbath with a Sunday Lord's day, or celebrating Resurrection Sunday. Adding a feast of the Nativity fits in this box.
This, btw, is not a whole lot different from teh Jewish tradition out of which the church grew. As Jews, we understand there is no such thing as Torah without Oral Torah. The rabbis have every right to declare a new holy day for us, such as Chanukah.
I realize you completely reject this manner of thought. My goal here has not been to persuade you, but simply to explain how it goes, so that you can understand why i.e. Christmas exists.
I don't think the religious aspect of Christmas as a holy day has strayed. True there is nothing in Scripture about celebrating births and the exact month of His birth is not known, nor is it important to know. A better question why Christmas is celebrated the world over by non-religious.
Glutton, receiving pointless stuff, an excuse to have a ‘jolly’, just to ‘fit in’ with western society, making it easier for western society to engage in their celebration events…What for them is the 'spirit of Christmas' that draws them together to celebrate?
That is not true. Christians were worshiping on Sunday from the first century. We know this because it is explicitly stated in the Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians that AFTER the sabbath, christians were to keep the Lord's day as a festival. "And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day;" What day was the resurrection? Sunday.The authority (or rather, command) for Sunday worship came from Emperor Constantine. The command was directed at the new Christian faith but not to the Jews and was designed to meld in with the Roman day of worship of their Sun God, ‘Sol’.
So, yes, the bishops in the Holy Roman Catholic order would have agreed with the command from the Emperor.
Of course, this meant that the Christian Church was drawn away from the Jewish SABBATH DAY worship.
"Nothing" is too extreme. Especially considering that even without unbiased written sources, the inspirations for the customs that have become Christmas that aren't directly connected to Christianity appear to come from a common human source: The need for celebration and coming together during a difficult time of year. I suspect many of the things that make Christmas a meaningful holiday (even in the secular culture)--the feasting, resting, gathering together, gifting, singing, and lighting--are supernormal stimuli for instinctual drives to maintain human social bonds and survive a harsh environment.
These are also likely the source of religion: cultural artifacts practiced widely as a tool for maintaining social cohesion. If anything is pagan, it is this.
That's only if we are willing to believe that with Christianity, the Romans and their conquered lands simply gave up their previous practices and didn't do what every other culture taken by Christianity has done and intermingled their cultural artifacts with it. That the historical record is murky shouldn't dismiss this speculation. And it certainly justifies those who wish to appropriate (or reappropriate) the holiday season as intrinsically human from those who try to shove the Christ back into Christmas.
You could be more right… or not!That is not true. Christians were worshiping on Sunday from the first century. We know this because it is explicitly stated in the Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians that AFTER the sabbath, christians were to keep the Lord's day as a festival. "And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day;" What day was the resurrection? Sunday.
So the pattern of Sunday worship was well established before Constantine. What Constantine did was make Sunday a public holiday, as both Christians and pagans used this day for worship, it was convenient for the empire.
The bishops of teh Catholic church did their own thing. They did not take their lead from Constantine. This is most obvious during the Council of Nicea. Constantine favored the Arian tradition, but the Council of BIshops went the way of the Trinity. Constantine was not a bishop, so he had NO AUTHORITY over Christian doctrine. Indeed, he didn't even become a Christian until he was on his deathbed.
Indeed, he didn't even become a Christian until he was on his deathbed.
"While his belief in Christianity occurred long before his death, it was only on his deathbed that he was baptised, in 337 by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia," Deathbed conversion - WikipediaYou make a lot of useful points in your post, but not sure this one is quite right.
Back then being baptised on your deathbed wasn’t the same as becoming Christian on your deathbed.
It was a ploy used to ensure you died without sins as baptism washed all previous ones away.
In the Christian church of that era, one was not considered a Christian until one was baptized -- baptism was the entrance rite into the church. So, the fact that he was baptized so close to his death is evidence that he did not make a full conversion until that time. The fact that he was baptized by an Arian bishop supports the claim that to the end, he favored the Arian position, not the Trinitarian one. Thus no one can say that he is responsible for the adoption of the Nicene Creed.
This isn’t really true. Many people who considered themselves and were considered Christians weren’t yet formally baptised (they were called catechumen) and it wasn’t uncommon for people to purposely delay it to maximise the absolution of sins.
Although you have nothing to say that is possible other than your belief.
Well, it's interesting in a physical kind of way, but I personally don't think it has any spiritual significance.
You make a lot of useful points in your post, but not sure this one is quite right.
Back then being baptised on your deathbed wasn’t the same as becoming Christian on your deathbed.
It was a ploy used to ensure you died without sins as baptism washed all previous ones away.