Judgment from Yahweh during Chr-stmas Day?

[DNB]

"the Jews?" I'm referring to what Acts 21:20 says about the thousands of believers who were zealous for Torah. IOW these were Nazarenes, not just any Jews.

Christmas was never pagan, unless you are claiming that Christianity is itself a form of paganism.

Either way, Christians do not follow the law - for it is by grace that we are saved and not by works, obviously. Jesus was the final Yom Kippur, so that eliminates that celebration immediately. Same with tabernacles and passover - for Gentiles.

Again, Christmas is pagan in both spirit and practice. The Messiah was given gifts as king of kings and saviour of the world - why do you and I receive gifts?
No one knows the day of Christ' birth, because the inspired authors of the Bible felt it irrelevant, therefore it is not to be either determined or revered, obviously.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hi Debater Slayer. Good evening. Yahweh punished the antediluvian peoples with a global flood in the time of Noah. So yes, Yahweh can judge people and nations with severe weather.

Of course, the problem with using severe weather as a tool of punishment is that neither a flood nor blizzard can discern between the innocent and the guilty -- which leaves little to no incentive to be innocent.

If you're going to get punished anyway, you might as well do the crime...

EDIT: Just to be clear. Chr-stmas is a pagan celebration that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. It is replete with paganism. If you've ever read the Bible, you'll know that Yahweh hates paganism. As a matter of fact, He wants His worship to be pure. The Pilgrim Fathers rejected Xmas as a heathen festival also and kept it as a fast day. Yahweh does judge. We know that from the Bible.

Always refreshing to be reminded that the only people in America to ever actually declare a "War on Christmas" were the Christians.

 

[Oeste]

Yes, it was a correlation - whether false or not, Messianic Israelite attempted to draw a correlation between the two facts, obviously.

I understand what your saying here DNB, but without data there is no correlation. A false truth is not a truth, a false fact is not a fact, and a false correlation is not a correlation. Whether a correlation exists is dependent on data, and not simply on a statement that a correlation exists.

I can say wind speeds were heavy the day before Christmas due to an increase of travelers opening and shutting car doors, but I don't think anyone would say a correlation exists. I could start building a correlation by estimating the number of travelers on the road and comparing wind speeds with less traveled days. I can then present this data as a correlation. Whether an actual correlation exists or not is, as you stated, immaterial, as my data need not be causal.

And, if you would follow the context a bit more closely, you would've understood what was being addressed and why. Therefore, it was a correlation, that Heathen failed to recognize..

I believe I followed closely, but if there's a correlation then you may be privy to some data that the rest of us have not seen. Without this, there is no correlation for Heathen or others to recognize.

Again, Christmas is pagan in both spirit and practice. The Messiah was given gifts as king of kings and saviour of the world - why do you and I receive gifts?

We receive gifts by the grace of God. They are both material and spiritual. They may be poured directly on us or received through others.

No one knows the day of Christ' birth, because the inspired authors of the Bible felt it irrelevant, therefore it is not to be either determined or revered, obviously.

Actually the bible authors considered the birth of Jesus quite relevant or else they would never have mentioned it. Giving praise to God and rejoicing in the birth of Jesus is not prohibited by scripture nor does it require a "Command" from God.

Your argument is not with the birth of Jesus, but with celebrating his birth. A date Christians, not pagans, assigned to December 25th.

I think your argument would have more relevance if you could point to some bible verse that states Jesus would not be born on any celebrated pagan holiday. A tall order given the thousands of pagan feasts and holidays celebrated in the world at that time. IMO, the argument against Christmas is much like that levied against Jesus for working miracles on the Sabbath.

Secondly, it would carry even more relevance if scripture prevented Jews from converting foreigners on any foreign feast or holiday. Perhaps the Jews consulted with their pagan neighbors, learned their gods and celebrations, and forbid conversions that might take place on those days. This seems to be the argument with the forgotten god, Saturnalia, so perhaps there is some biblical precedent.

Third, I would like to see the verse that Christians should only celebrate and give praise when commanded by God. I have seen this assertion popping up in many of the forum discussions, but I fail to understand the underlying basis.

Lastly, there appears to be another argument, that Christians only celebrate Christ's birth on Christmas, and not Christ himself. I think any fair assessment would show that not only do we celebrate Christmas, but every day we have life as well.

 

[DNB]

I understand what your saying here DNB, but without data there is no correlation. A false truth is not a truth, a false fact is not a fact, and a false correlation is not a correlation. Whether a correlation exists is dependent on data, and not simply on a statement that a correlation exists.

I can say wind speeds were heavy the day before Christmas due to an increase of travelers opening and shutting car doors, but I don't think anyone would say a correlation exists. I could start building a correlation by estimating the number of travelers on the road and comparing wind speeds with less traveled days. I can then present this data as a correlation. Whether an actual correlation exists or not is, as you stated, immaterial, as my data need not be causal.





I believe I followed closely, but if there's a correlation then you may be privy to some data that the rest of us have not seen. Without this, there is no correlation for Heathen or others to recognize.




We receive gifts by the grace of God. They are both material and spiritual. They may be poured directly on us or received through others.



Actually the bible authors considered the birth of Jesus quite relevant or else they would never have mentioned it. Giving praise to God and rejoicing in the birth of Jesus is not prohibited by scripture nor does it require a "Command" from God.

Your argument is not with the birth of Jesus, but with celebrating his birth. A date Christians, not pagans, assigned to December 25th.

I think your argument would have more relevance if you could point to some bible verse that states Jesus would not be born on any celebrated pagan holiday. A tall order given the thousands of pagan feasts and holidays celebrated in the world at that time. IMO, the argument against Christmas is much like that levied against Jesus for working miracles on the Sabbath.

Secondly, it would carry even more relevance if scripture prevented Jews from converting foreigners on any foreign feast or holiday. Perhaps the Jews consulted with their pagan neighbors, learned their gods and celebrations, and forbid conversions that might take place on those days. This seems to be the argument with the forgotten god, Saturnalia, so perhaps there is some biblical precedent.

Third, I would like to see the verse that Christians should only celebrate and give praise when commanded by God. I have seen this assertion popping up in many of the forum discussions, but I fail to understand the underlying basis.

Lastly, there appears to be another argument, that Christians only celebrate Christ's birth on Christmas, and not Christ himself. I think any fair assessment would show that not only do we celebrate Christmas, but every day we have life as well.

The day of Jesus' birth is neither stressed nor even given in Scripture, therefore neither fabricate the date nor revere it - Christ's most important accomplishment is that he loved God with all his heart, mind and soul, attaining him to perfection, and consequently allowing the Law to be abrogated and our condemnation to be absolved - which single day of the year will you reserve for that celebration?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Christ's most important accomplishment is that he loved God with all his heart, mind and soul, attaining him to perfection, and consequently allowing the Law to be abrogated and our condemnation to be absolved..

Oh?
..so what was the point of "God's law"?
Something arbitrary, that He suddenly decided wasn't necessary any more?

Did the Romans, who sponsored the said creed, abolish their law too?
[rhetorical question]

 

[DNB]

Oh?
..so what was the point of "God's law"?
Something arbitrary, that He suddenly decided wasn't necessary any more?

Did the Romans, who sponsored the said creed, abolish their law too?
[rhetorical question]

Speaking in context: God's Law was intended to exacerbate sin, in order for man to appreciate his need for a Redeemer, and allow the Law of faith to be instituted.

What Roman creed, Nicaea? no idea what you're leading to with your final statement?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

consequently allowing the Law to be abrogated

Jesus said that not even a brushstroke would pass away from the Law until heaven and earth have passed away. Please look outside and see if you don't still see the heavens and the earth.

 

[DNB]

Jesus said that not even a brushstroke would pass away from the Law until heaven and earth have passed away. Please look outside and see if you don't still see the heavens and the earth.

Are we going in circles?
You said that you were studied in the NT - are you unaware of the Jerusalem council, or Paul's incessant frustration with the Judaizers, and his disapproval of the necessity to follow dietary and festival laws?
Or, the Book of Hebrews, you didn't know that Jesus was the final Yom Kippur - ending the entire sacrificial system.
Christ fulfilled the Law (neither a jot or tittle will pass away until all is fulfilled, even up until heaven and earth disappear),
Which part of Christianity do you not understand?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are we going in circles?
You said that you were studied in the NT - are you unaware of the Jerusalem council, or Paul's incessant frustration with the Judaizers, and his disapproval of the necessity to follow dietary and festival laws?
Or, the Book of Hebrews, you didn't know that Jesus was the final Yom Kippur - ending the entire sacrificial system.
Christ fulfilled the Law (neither a jot or tittle will pass away until all is fulfilled, even up until heaven and earth disappear),
Which part of Christianity do you not understand?

The 613 commandments of the torah are for the people of Israel. They were never for non-Jews. The Jerusalem council affirmed that there is no reason for non-Jews to convert and come under the covenant. There is no reason for a non-Jew to keep kosher or observe Shabbat. However, there are universal laws which bind you -- don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc. Just as Jews are obligated to keep the 613 laws of the torah, non-Jews are just as obligated to keep these universal laws.

So again, when you look outside, are the heavens and earth still there?

 

[DNB]

The 613 commandments of the torah are for the people of Israel. They were never for non-Jews. The Jerusalem council affirmed that there is no reason for non-Jews to convert and come under the covenant. There is no reason for a non-Jew to keep kosher or observe Shabbat. However, there are universal laws which bind you -- don't murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc. Just as Jews are obligated to keep the 613 laws of the torah, non-Jews are just as obligated to keep these universal laws.

So again, when you look outside, are the heavens and earth still there?

I imagine that the clause 'until heaven and earth pass away' is an exegetical issue - it can be understood that even before this happens, neither a jot or tittle of the Law shall be unaccounted for - Christ fulfilled all the 613 precepts of the Torah, the most critical being the shema.

This is not a flippant remark, for, as I keep emphasizing, Jesus' death on the cross addresses a more fundamental issue: guilt and condemnation i.e. faith over works
This is the paramount issue of Christianity, otherwise there would be no other meaningful reason for Jesus to die - I assume that you agree that the penal substitution theory of the atonement is not viable on any level?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I imagine that the clause 'until heaven and earth pass away' is an exegetical issue - it can be understood that even before this happens, neither a jot or tittle of the Law shall be unaccounted for - Christ fulfilled all the 613 precepts of the Torah, the most critical being the shema.

This is not a flippant remark, for, as I keep emphasizing, Jesus' death on the cross addresses a more fundamental issue: guilt and condemnation i.e. faith over works
This is the paramount issue of Christianity, otherwise there would be no other meaningful reason for Jesus to die - I assume that you agree that the penal substitution theory of the atonement is not viable on any level?

Clearly Jesus was saying that the Law was not going to pass away. This contradicts other portions of the NT such as Hebrews when it says that the Law is passing away. You will have to choose which author you believe, and which author you will ignore.

I do not see where Jesus taught salvation by faith. All his sermons were about how to do what is right. His parable of the sheep and the goats clearly indicates that eternal life is determine by our kindness to the poor, the sick, the oppressed. This is a very different message than the one Paul preaches. Again, you will have to choose which you are going to believe and which you are going to ignore.

As a Jew, I don't think Jesus' death accomplished anything at all. He was just another rabble rouser that the Romans crucified.

You are correct. I find absolutely no merit in the Christian concept of substitutionary atonement. According to the Tanakh each man is responsible for his own sin. My suffering is not going to atone for your sins.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is the paramount issue of Christianity, otherwise there would be no other meaningful reason for Jesus to die ..

Do you think?
Was there a "meaningful reason" why John the Baptist was beheaded?

 

[DNB]

Clearly Jesus was saying that the Law was not going to pass away. This contradicts other portions of the NT such as Hebrews when it says that the Law is passing away. You will have to choose which author you believe, and which author you will ignore.

I do not see where Jesus taught salvation by faith. All his sermons were about how to do what is right. His parable of the sheep and the goats clearly indicates that eternal life is determine by our kindness to the poor, the sick, the oppressed. This is a very different message than the one Paul preaches. Again, you will have to choose which you are going to believe and which you are going to ignore.

As a Jew, I don't think Jesus' death accomplished anything at all. He was just another rabble rouser that the Romans crucified.

You are correct. I find absolutely no merit in the Christian concept of substitutionary atonement. According to the Tanakh each man is responsible for his own sin. My suffering is not going to atone for your sins.

I accept the testimonies of both Jesus and Paul, and my exegetical responsibility is to harmonize the seemingly contradictory statements..
Again, the Law was a taskmaster meant to exacerbate sin, ultimately making man aware of both the utterly egregious nature of sin, and the inextricable predicament that man is in attempting to be righteous according to God's standards.
So, yes, both Jesus and Paul were correct: Christ emphasized God's holy and just demand that all men be good, and Paul, after Christ's death and ascension, elucidated the futility of man attempting to be so, and consequently God's unwarranted mercy and grace - may the abrogation of the Law be to the glory of God.

Consider strongly the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, and almost 2,000 years later the Jews have still not been able to perform their Levitical requirements in regard to sin, guilt/trespass offerings to the Lord. Does this not, in some manner, attest to God's disregard for the former covenant?

 

[DNB]

Do you think?
Was there a "meaningful reason" why John the Baptist was beheaded?

Why do you ask such an irrelevant question?
John the Baptist neither predicted nor embraced his death, Christ did both.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Consider strongly the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, and almost 2,000 years later the Jews have still not been able to perform their Levitical requirements in regard to sin, guilt/trespass offerings to the Lord. Does this not, in some manner, attest to God's disregard for the former covenant?

When there is no temple, our prayers are our sacrifices as per Hosea 14:2 "May the words of our lips (prayers) be as bullocks (sacrifices)" It's not ideal, but it is sufficient. Some day the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resume.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why do you ask such an irrelevant question?
John the Baptist neither predicted nor embraced his death...

You don't know that..
..just because you haven't got a text in the Bible that hasn't got somebody saying that he predicted his death, you assume that John the Baptist is .. as you put it .. irrelevant.

Both Jesus and John were persecuted for their righteousness.
..but you can only see what you see .. you only see what chosen texts of a canon depict.

 

[DNB]

When there is no temple, our prayers are our sacrifices as per Hosea 14:2 "May the words of our lips (prayers) be as bullocks (sacrifices)" It's not ideal, but it is sufficient. Some day the temple will be rebuilt and sacrifices resume.

I think that after 2,000 years, God has already expressed His position on the necessity and significance of both the Temple and the sacrificial system.

 

[DNB]

You don't know that..
..just because you haven't got a text in the Bible that hasn't got somebody saying that he predicted his death, you assume that John the Baptist is .. as you put it .. irrelevant.

Both Jesus and John were persecuted for their righteousness.
..but you can only see what you see .. you only see what chosen texts of a canon depict.

your changing the subject, again.
Christ's death had a profound significance unlike any other man on earth, and Christ was aware of this, prior, during and after his death - he rebuked his Apostles for not recognizing this.
Your remark about John the Baptist has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.
And your final remark above was utterly ridiculous.

 

[Oeste]

Getting back to thread theme...

The day of Jesus' birth is neither stressed nor even given in Scripture,

The birth of the long promised Savior is "stressed" at Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14. Matthew 1 gives us the genealogy of Jesus, something scripture would not do if unimportant. So not only do we see scripture stressing his pending birth, we see how stressed things become at and immediately following his birth. This includes signs in the sky, gift bearing men, a plot to kill the newborn King, and toddlers being put to death.

therefore neither fabricate the date nor revere it

The actual day of a biblical event is rarely given in scripture, but I don't see why this should be taken as a sign the event should not be celebrated.

which single day of the year will you reserve for that celebration?

We have freedom in Christ, so we do not have to reserve our praise to a single day. We can reserve single days, but we don't have to. Praise and worship can be on a reserved day, days, week, month, year, or completely spontaneous with no reservation at all. You are also free not to celebrate, as there is neither command to celebrate or not celebrate Christmas.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

It's important to remember that "birthday" has two components: a birth and a day. Christians celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25. It could have been any day but December 25 was chosen. In other words, the stress is on the birth of Christ, and not on the day of December 25th. In the secular world, the day (December 25) is stressed, and the birth of Christ is hardly mentioned at all, but that is the way of the world.

In regards to Bacchanalia and Saturnalia mentioned in the OP, Bacchanalia was an orgy in honor of the Roman god of wine. If Christians are celebrating Bacchanalia then we are doing it all wrong, as we should be handing out wine menus rather than service guides and church bulletins. Lastly, Saturnalia was celebrated on December 17th and lasted through the 23rd. So if Christians are celebrating Saturnalia on the 25th, they are celebrating on the wrong day, and getting celebratory days exactly right appears very important to the critics.

 

[DNB]

The actual day of a biblical event is rarely given in scripture, but I don't see why this should be taken as a sign the event should not be celebrated.

We have freedom in Christ, so we do not have to reserve our praise to a single day. We can reserve single days, but we don't have to. Praise and worship can be on a reserved day, days, week, month, year, or completely spontaneous with no reservation at all. You are also free not to celebrate, as there is neither command to celebrate or not celebrate Christmas..

Galatians 4:8-12
8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you are turning back to those weak and worthless principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11I fear for you, that my efforts for you may have been in vain. 12I beg you, brothers, become like me, for I became like you. You have done me no wrong.

Colossians 2:16
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.