There seems to be a trend in modern Christianity to remove fundamental elements of Christmas, and for seemingly noble reasons too. After all, Christmas isn't really about a tree, tinsel, egg nog, missile toe, jingle bells… However, it is ALL about presents.
What do I mean? Let me explain…
Christmas could be compared in a way to the celebration of marriage. At the end of the day, a man and a women profess their vows to one another before God in the presence of witnesses. However, many wedding celebrations include much more than that. There are decorations, tuxedos, cakes, meals, gifts, cards, confetti, etc. oh and of course, the dress!
We could take the approach and say that a wedding isn’t really about all that other stuff, all we need are the vows. And to some extent that’s true. When we let the meal, the dress, the decorations etc. become the focus, those things detract from the meaning of the celebration: the marriage itself, the uniting of man and women to become one flesh.
We use those extra ‘things' to celebrate the importance of the day. There’s a reason that people don’t typically wear sweat pants and ripped jeans to a wedding. We dress up because it’s a special celebration.
So how does this relate to Christmas? Putting up lights, decorations, baking delicious treats, kissing under the missile toe, going to church and singing carols are ways we can celebrate and remember the importance of what Christmas is. The problem we run into, is we can sometimes let the identity of this holy day become about these things rather than the analogous marriage vows.
These traditions in themselves aren’t bad, it’s how we use them that determines if they are good or bad.
There was this one guy in the fourth century who went around to people’s homes who were in need. And in the secret of night he left them gifts. He also punched the heretic (Arius) who tried to teach that Jesus was lesser than, and created by God... Jolly old Saint Nicholas (bishop of Myra) is pretty much the coolest bishop (Santa) ever.
Regardless of the traditions each of us utilize to remember the birth of our Saviour, there is one thing I truly believe… Christmas is really about the presents. Not necessarily the ones under the tree (although these point to and remind us of something greater). The gift I’m referring to is what Christmas is really about.
Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was born to us. God became man, incarnate and died for us, for our sins. This is how much he loved us, so that if we might choose to receive this gift of grace, we might have eternal life.
This is the gift of what Christmas is all about. And just how Christ gave us the greatest gift of all, we too in turn regift this to others. Presents under the tree remind us of the gifts we are to share with others.
Christmas really is about the presents.
8 comments:
Hello, Chris!
I think I've spent the last 2 hours reading your articles. I really like the people who have spiritual interests, and you have for sure!
Even if I appreciate the way you wrote this article about Christmas and how people should actually think about Jesus instead of thinking about how can they have a better and greater Christmas party, I am concerned about the origins of this day. So, according to tradition, Jesus’ birth took place on December 25 and is celebrated on that date. “Christmas,” says the Encyclopedia of Religion, means “‘Christ’s Mass,’ that is, the mass celebrating the feast of Christ’s nativity,” or birth.
Its roots: “The establishment of December 25 evolved not from biblical precedent,” says The Christmas Encyclopedia, “but from pagan Roman festivals held at year’s end,” about the time of the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. Those festivals included the Saturnalia, in honor of Saturn, god of agriculture, “and the combined festivals of two sun gods, the Roman Sol and the Persian Mithra,” says the same encyclopedia. Both birthdays were celebrated on December 25, the winter solstice according to the Julian calendar.
Those pagan festivals began to be “Christianized” in the year 350, when Pope Julius I declared December 25 to be Christ’s birthday. “The Nativity gradually absorbed or supplanted all other solstice rites,” says the Encyclopedia of Religion. “Solar imagery came increasingly to be used to portray the risen Christ (who was also called Sol Invictus), and the old solar disk . . . became the halo of Christian saints.”
I am not a native speaker, but I did my best.
Looking forward for your answer!
Thanks for your comment. I've heard that connection before. But here's the issue... Almost everything Christian or secular has pagan roots. Consider the cross. Christians use it as our sign of salvation, yet the Romans FIRST used it as a sign of death, defeat and humiliation. Do you have the same mentality toward the cross as you do remembering the day our saviour was born? If not, why? Heres a conprehensive start on the significance of Dec 25th the alledged pagan connection. I welcome your response! Blessings!
http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/why-december-25
Thank you for your answer.
I am christian, but I don't use the cross.The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros′. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.
Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy′lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy′lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)
“The shape of the [two-beamed cross] had its origin in ancient Chaldea, and was used as the symbol of the god Tammuz (being in the shape of the mystic Tau, the initial of his name) in that country and in adjacent lands, including Egypt. By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith. In order to increase the prestige of the apostate ecclesiastical system pagans were received into the churches apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbols. Hence the Tau or T, in its most frequent form, with the cross-piece lowered, was adopted to stand for the cross of Christ.”—An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256.In ancient Israel, unfaithful Jews wept over the death of the false god Tammuz. Jehovah God spoke of what they were doing as being a ‘detestable thing.’ (Ezek. 8:13, 14) According to history, Tammuz was a Babylonian god, and the cross was used as his symbol. From its beginning in the days of Nimrod, Babylon was against the True God and an enemy of true worship. So by cherishing the cross, a person is honoring a symbol of worship that is opposed to God.
Of interest is this comment in the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The representation of Christ’s redemptive death on Golgotha does not occur in the symbolic art of the first Christian centuries. The early Christians, influenced by the Old Testament prohibition of graven images, were reluctant to depict even the instrument of the Lord’s Passion.”—(1967), Vol. IV, p. 486
I read the link you sent me but I'm still thinking about the fact that, even if Jesus' mom and the apostles knew his birth name, they didn't celebrate it. I understand how Christianity wanted to stress the diffrence between them and pagans by celebrating Christmas in the same period pagans celebrated their false gods, but I think the best way to emphasize the differences, could have been to keep following Jesus' teachings and rules. And celebrating Christmas was not something about Jesus talked.He did talk about this sign: John 13:35. Unfortuntely, Catholic Curch did not show this kind of love, neither to her followers or to the pagans who were Christianized against their own will.
I respect your beliefs, I don't want you to consider that I challenge you. I've just expressed my point of view. Greetings from Romania!
Thank you for your response. I assume by your claims that you follow the teaching a of the Jehovah's Witnesses? (The reasons I mention it is because I've heard the same arguments, almost exclusively from the Watchtower organization). You have made some claims that I would love to get some clarification on from you on.
Firstly, "pagans were received into the churches [in the first few centuries] apart from regeneration by faith, and were permitted largely to retain their pagan signs and symbol". Do you have any proof of this? Any writings or documentation? Do any of the church fathers (the first Christians) write about this issue? Otherwise it seems to be an unsubstantiated claim... I could claim that first century Christians were all blue like smurfs, but without evidence, it's hard to prove...
Secondly, if you cross check (no pun intended) this doctrine you hold with traditional JW teachings, this belief was not present in the earliest doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Joseph Rutherford taught, “The cross of Christ is the greatest pivotal truth of the divine arrangement, from which radiate the hopes of men.” It was not until the late 1930s that Rutherford changed the Witnesses' position on this issue.
Thirdly, you are partially correct that the Greek word referenced in the Bible for cross, can mean stake or spit. But it CAN also mean cross. So since the Bible doesn't interpret itself, we need to look to the writings of the Christians who were around at the time.
I find it interesting that Matthew 27:37 states they put the charge ABOVE HIS HEAD stating "king of the Jews". If he was on a torture stake, the charge would be placed above his hands, not his head as Scripture reveals.
In the year A.D. 100, the epistle of Barnabas described how Jesus’ outstretched arms on the cross were similar to Moses’ outstretched arms in a battle with the Amalekites. Many other second and third century Christian writers and historians describe the cross as well.
This has been a matter of tradition and history since the first century. I'm not sure why someone would be so quick to dismiss the cross, because it might and possibly could potentially be used in another way. This doctrine of Jesus dying on a torture stake is less than a century old and was invented by man. Perhaps you can find some Christian writers across history who support your claims?
Fourthly, you claim Mary and the apostles didn't celebrate Jesus birthday because it's not in Scripture... Are you saying if it's not in the Bible we shouldn't do it? This introduces a problem for you, as many things you believe are not in the Bible, namely which books and verses make up the Bible! There is not a passage that indicates Hebrews (for example) should be included in the canon. So why is it in your Bible? If you apply your logic (as to why we shouldn't celebrate Christmas because it's not in the Bible) then you don't have a Bible at all! In fact, there wasn't a bible for the first four centuries (until after the supposed pagans we accepted without regeneration).
Lastly, I agree, Christians will be known by our love. However, JWs have committed just as grievous sins against God as Catholics, and Baptists, and Pentecostals, etc... Look at our first Pope, he denied Christ! The apostle St. Paul persecuted Christians! This is no excuse, but if you interpret scripture the way that you have, to exclude Catholics, you also excuse almost everyone in the New Testament...
Let me know what you think and if I can help you answer this further. God bless!
Hello again! So, thank you for your answer.
Firstly, "By the middle of the 3rd cent. A.D. the churches had either departed from, or had travestied, certain doctrines of the Christian faith."- An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London, 1962), W. E. Vine, p. 256. This is the source, and not the only one, which is talking about how pagans become christians. The first christians warned everybody about the apostasy which really come after their death. It's not surprising that the first christians didn't say anything. They were not alive in the 3rd cent. and to be honest, I don't know for sure who should I trust after their death. Even in their life's time some false christians appeared, according to what St. Paul and John said. I saw the way history is presented nowdays when are many official sources who pretend they say the truth.So, who should we trust?
Secondly, I liked your argument about the cross, from Mattew 27:37, but even if Jesus would have died on a cross, I still don't believe we should worship it.
Thirdly, the fact that celebrating Christmas is not in the Bible, is not the only reason I gave up celebrating it. The idea that the "Christians" were celebrated this holiday because they wanted to do a difference between them and pagans may seem right. But, the problem is that now, everybody is a christian because of Christmas, but they don't do anything else than having great parties, getting drunk etc. I don't think this is the way Christ wants us to remember about his birth. Now you'll say that I am not obliged to do what they do, and that I can remember Jesus without having a party. This is exactly what I am saying. SOMEBODY CAN REMEMBER JESUS'S BIRTH EVERYTIME. What's wrong in not celebrating Christmas as long as I am trying to do my best as a Christian? So, if so far, christians celebrated Christmas because they wanted to stress their beliefs in Jesus, now I think that true christians need to stress the difference between them and other christians.
"JWs have committed just as grievous sins (...)". Can you give me some examples? I agree that we all have sins, but JWs didn't killed people the way Catholic Church did. They excommunicate the members who don't respect the rules, but they don't kill anybody for that. And, St. Paul persecuted christians BEFORE he became one.
Have a nice day! :) God bless you and your beautiful family.
Hello, Chris!
I didn't have the time for writing a reply, since you gave me a lot to study :)) I'll read and I'll compare. I am not JW since oct. 2014. I would like to ask you why did you say you witnessed personally what they did to the ones who gave up of being JW? Do you have friends who were JW?
Hi Simona! No problem! There was a lot there! Perhaps we could connect via email? chris@chrisbraymusic.com. I'd love to chat with you more and hear about your journey. Blessings!
Post a Comment