Featured Catholics Come Home

False. The early Christians were Christians who had turned from their Judaism, forsaken it, and walked the life of "The Way," or Biblical Christianity. "And they were first called 'Christians' in Antioch."

Christmas does not honor God in any way.

An absolute falsehood that someone is making up and others are "following a lie."
First, Christians do not have a "Festival of Lights." Christians are made up of those who came OUT OF Judaism and Gentile religions. They forsake their former religions (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism) and become Christians. One cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time; neither could he worship as a Jew and a Christian at the same time.
Concerning the Temple, it was only a very short time after Pentecost that the Christians were no longer allowed in the Temple. Remember the stoning of Stephen. By that time no Christian was allowed in the Temple.

Yes, but for how long? There was a great persecution under Paul in Acts 8, and the Christians went everywhere preaching the Word. Saul hunted down Christians to throw them in jail even killing others. They could not worship in the Temple--impossible!

Christians never had such a feast in the first place. Christians aren't Jews. You are confused. You have no evidence for what you just said.

Again, this is a lie. It has no basis in history. Christians are not Jews, they are followers of Christ. I will show you what Jews believe and have in common with Christians in a minute.

There are many other such examples that can be given as well. Satan is a great imitator. He imitates God and his work wherever and whenever he can.

It is written by a Catholic apologist who is good at what they are always good at--revising history. There are many facts of history denied, changed, and outright lies. It is a deceptive piece of art. Don't recommend anyone to read it.

This is a Jewish site which has some excellent facts, and well documented, about Christ and his birthday.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm

Here is the well-read and ever so popular Wikipedia, which doesn't have a bone to pick with anyone. It is neither Catholic nor Protestant. It simply gives the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

That should give you more than enough information to realize that your very biased Catholic article is wrong, and you should rethink things.

 

DHK, this your typical "Lies, lies, Catholic lies' response. Wikipedia? Really, DHK. That is your source? Wow! Heard of Ralph Woodrow? Not a Catholic, right? You and others here are fond of citing Hislop's book. Ralph Woodrow, who plundered Hislop's book for much of the material in his own best-seller, Babylon Mystery Religion, has been powerfully forthcoming in withdrawing that book from the market and in and publishing the errors it contains. Hislop's book is still in print but Woodrow's is getting hard to come by. Pity. I'd like to build a library of this stuff along with Chick tracts. Interesting to see one of your own will admit to their mistakes:

http://www.ralphwoodrow.org/books/pages/babylon-mystery.html

 

You use a Catholic source which doesn't even have his facts straight. Saturnalia was practiced as a one day festival, Dec. 17th, before the first advent of Christ. Because of the popularity of the feast, it quickly expanded to a full week, ending on Dec. 24th. Caesar Augustus tried to have it reduced to 3 days, but was unsuccessful. When the Church was trying to grow attendance, the started bringing in pagan holidays. The 25th was picked because it fell at the end of Saturnalia and allowed the pagans to continue to worship the sun god, but then after 7 days of debaucher, they could come into the Church.

 

I understand Walter. When you don't have a leg to stand on, you make up things and attack the person and not the position instead of the other way around. That is not debate, it is ad hominem.

Yes, Wikipedia. I chose that over Hislop, Chick tracts, etc. because it is neutral. If I went to Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia (which I have), or any other encyclopedia, it would tell me the same thing. I have used them before. They are secular sources with no bone to pick--neither Catholic nor Protestant, as I said.
So instead of looking at fact you simply falsely accuse me, and attack my person. I never used any false source whatsoever. Unlike you who did use a very biased source, a Catholic Apologist, I didn't get information from Hislop or Woodrow.

Your eyes have been blinded to the truth. I could cite you many more sources. They all say the same thing. The link you gave was historically wrong and inaccurate. It should be closed down for citing misinformation.

Do you want more sources, more documented proof? I will give it to you if you need it?
That Jewish site was fairly convincing. They have no reason to post false information.

 

We do NOT recognize the Church of Rome as being a Christian church, as it holds to another Gospel, but do see catholics saved by Grace of God des[ite their errors and heresies!

 

How sad DHK, that you do not celebrate the birth of Christ. It was a common practice to overturn the old ways in Christianising a people and that included a remodelling of old festivals. There is scriptural precedence in this. The New Testament was built on the bones of the Old. We do not know the actual date of the birth of the Redeemer in Bethlehem, but it is a visible marker for us here. Because it is one of the major feast days or holy days of the Christian calendar...it is marked by the Advent period for Christmas and Lent prior to Easter...it is for us to remind us of the importance of these 2 events and traditionally marks a period of fast and abstaining from the pleasures of the world in order to contemplate the majesty of our Saviour.

Many people skip the preparing of the way to these holy days...but it also lessens the glory of Our Redeemer, which is for our benefit ( Christ's glory is neither diminished or added to by us).I count myself fortunate in being able to participate in such.

 

SAD!! I celebrate "the birth of Christ" every Sunday, every time I preach, every time I witness--that Christ came into the world to save sinners like you and I. That is what the gospel is all about. I feel sorry for you that you have to wait for one day in 365 to think about his birth. Now that is sad!!

Good, So tell me what will you be doing for the Muslim feast this day when they occur? Will you keep the fast during Ramadan? Offer a sacrifice at the end of it? Will you practice self-mutilation or flagellation with them on the Shiite holiday of Muharram? Will you sacrifice a goat at eid-el-Ibraham?
--Which one of these are you "remodeling and how?
Biblical Christianity follows the Bible not paganism. Modern "Christianity" or the RCC is largely syncrenistic , as it incorporates pagan beliefs of other religions into its own. Mexdeaf, who used to post here would give examples of this and so have I, put Catholics would simply deny them.
For example, Hindus offer sacrifice to their deities, their gods.
In one place I have been, a very popular place in Asia, they worship Mary (as usual). They bring their offerings (including chickens and goats) and lay them before a statue of Mary as their offering. This is syncretism. It is taking the Hindu belief of offering sacrifices to their deities and doing the same with your idol of Mary. Catholics do this all over the world.

What pagan beliefs have you incorporated into xmas?
Santa Claus? The Christmas tree? Reindeer? yule log? Mistletoe? Decorations with lights? etc. All of the above is from paganism. The very date, Dec.25 originates from paganism. It is syncrestic in nature--combining the pagan with the Christian. But that is what the RCC has always been since its inception at the beginning of the 4th century. Constantine introduced idolatry into it then when he paganized Christianity and Christianize paganism, making both more palatable for all. He made it a state-religion and has been ever since in one nation or another. It is godless institution that thinks that it can get its members to heaven through works rather than the grace of God.

The RCC never had any scriptural precedence.

When is the last time you took a lamb to a Levitical priest and asked him to offer it as a sacrifice? Have you been to a synagogue lately for worship?

IOW, Jesus is not enough. He is not all sufficient for you. You need more than just the Saviour. Too bad.

I don't have a "holy calendar." Did the Lord ever make calendars holy? Chapter and verse please!
Here is something for you to chew on, or at least to study.
I don 't keep lent, obviously. It is unscriptural. If lent was symbolic of the time of the 40 days of fasting of our Lord, then to be logic and consistent with the Scriptures you should do it immediately after your baptism shouldn't you? That is the time that Jesus did--immediately after he was baptized he went into the wilderness and there fasted for 40 days and nights. I'll bet your pediatricians would have a say in that wouldn't they? The population of the RCC would dramatically decrease as well. It shows how inconsistent the theology of the RCC is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lent
I am not wrong. You are confused and mixed up.

I participate in the celebration of the Lord's birth every day of my life, as I thank him for my salvation. I don't have to wait for one day out of 365. If that is the level that your Christianity has sunk I feel sorry for you. You are a very confused person with no real understanding of what true Christianity is all about.

 

You are entitled to your opinion DHK although you are very wrong on so many things! I am not confused at all. God bless you.

 

Paul said: Christ came into this world to save sinners of whom I am chief.
--His birth is mentioned there.

Jesus said: "For I came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give my life a ransom for many.
--His birth is mentioned there.

Absolutely. Every time I mention that Christ came into this world, it is a reference to his birth. How else did he come?

 

I know what the Bible teaches and I know what paganism teaches.
Show me from the Bible where I am wrong.

 

DHK, I think you're dodging Salty's question. He asked, "Do you absolutely mention and discuss the birth of Christ?"

So you always mention the He came into this world.

But do you mention the circumstances of His birth? You know, the Annunciation, the angel, the manger, the shepherds, the flight into Egypt?

For that matter do you ever mention these things in your sermons?

 

I didn't dodge his question one bit. I answered it as fully and completely as he quoted me and referenced me.
He quoted a part of this statement:

Yes, I mention the Lord's birth every day as I thank him for my salvation.
That is what I said, and I stand by it.

Is there any need to mention all the circumstances surrounding his birth?
No! of course not! I thank him that he came. That is what I said.

 

The 'flight' into Egypt wasn't at His birth, it was likely about 2 years later, when He was a small child.