Unprofitable...I know that the Word was made flesh but He existed before his incarnation. If you can show me in the Scriptures that the date of his incarnation was THIS day (equivalent to 12/25), by all means... Otherwise,this is adding to the Scripture. "Holiday" = "holy day" for which we have no authorization to set. Bottom line...what saith the Word or relativism
Unprofitable...I do not see where Christians celebrated christmas before the Roman Catholics coined the term. I do agree that people celebrated saturnalia,yule, and other pagan festivals on this day. Rome "christianized" the day by adding "christ" to the mix. We do know that the Puritans never celebrated it as they saw it for what it was...the pope's massing day and heathen revelry. Most important,we never see anyone in the Bible celebrating it past the event on a regular basis. Doesn't it strike you as peculiar that God would omit the date if He wanted us to observe it? We are told to not observe days based on Gal. 4:
10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
We are told how to remember Him specifically and setting a time aside to reflect on his birth is not it. The Word has no beginning. He is God. Going along with man's decisions and vain traditions are futile. He is not honored by partial truth. Man does not have the authority to add to Scripture. Going along with 12/25 is a lie.
I just wonder how one discerns what "merry christmas" means when it is so subjective. Pagans say it. Roman Catholics say it. I'm not even sure what it means when a Christian says it now. It's spoken for about a month prior to the 25th and on the 25th, sometimes after the 25th. I know for the RCs, the mass part of it is at the crux of it. Pass by any RC church on the eve of the 25th and it will be jam packed. No good comes from compromise which is why God warned us of following after the heathen. Even though we may not worship exactly as the heathen,the confusion and allowance for establishing our own twist to things opens the door to relativism. No absolutes. No standards. Man decides.
Christopher...sure that you mean well but I haven't read any posts that were offensive. We should be careful to not assume motives. Those who attack "chrisymas" are usually zealous to defend truth. We follow today after that which the Roman Catholic church authorized as the birth date of Christ. Sadly, because many RCs believe that Mary is the mother of God,a set birth date or annual observance of his birth just perpetuates that misconception which is one reason why it is a sin to follow after the traditions of men. It is indeed vain to sing of angels singing to a new-born King for those of us who have tasted of His mercy and grace towards are sins which were paid for at the cross long after his incarnation. We have his Holy Spirit and His finished Word. We should reject following after vain traditions, especially those by which we choose to honor Him with our lips (without His authorization). Liberty does not include that which God has rejected. So...when slammed with "merry christmas", I submit that we respond with "Jesus saves"...an expression that doesn't have different shades of meaning.
Regarding pictures of "Jesus"...there are many Scriptures which would warn us of so doing.. one Scripture that I came across on berean beacon is: ‚ÄúProfessing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beats, and creeping things‚ÄĚ (Romans 1:22-23). It's not a matter of bowing down to the image; it's a matter of depicting Jesus with a random image of corruptible man. I kinda wonder why in the world we would want to have a fake picture of God when we have His Holy Spirit and Scriptures. Even children are able to discern that those pictures are phony. Further, I can't think of any "jesus" movies that have been made that have been Scripturally correct. They are more for those who are moved emotionally than for those who care what the Word says. Sadly,if it's true,Mel Gibson will be making a sequel to the passion.
You're not understanding what I am saying. We are not presently witnessing the birth of Christ or in the days of His birth so it doesn't make sense to sing as though we are. Again,Scripture is sufficient the way that it is.
This song was not written by an RC but it doesn't mean that all of the words are accurate. We know that this was an historical event but angels praised and said the phrase, past tense. We don't use present time to preach any of the rest of the Word in regards to events that have already taken place. We don't put Him back on the cross. The point that I was making was that the Gospel needs no glitz and RC veneer for sufficiency. It is the plain,simple truth that has power not mushy,sentimental songs which are not totally truthful. While we are thankful that Christ was incarnated,we wouldn't want to go back in time with the cross yet to come. The price was paid at the cross not in the manger and songs or sermons that have to be qualified or accepted with lies are a deterrent to preaching the Word. Change the words of these songs to make them correct if you want to sing them. We are to worship in spirit and in TRUTH. We have the Comforter and the hope of His 2nd coming. Why do we have to step back in time? We wouldn't celebrate someone's birthday by sticking them back in the cradle and,of course,by going along with His beginning at the manger,RCs more readily make Mary the mother of God which we know is false. The Word always was.
What is more frightening are the cults and false religions like Roman Catholicism that present themselves as "Christian" but are leading many to Hell. Of ocurse, there is witchcraft in the RC church as well (i.e. their mass whereby "Christ" is called down from Heaven to turn into an idol wafer" through the hocus pocus of so called priests). And, don't most everybody, including naive Christians go along with this Yuletide season...which belonged to the witches from the beginning? Yule is still their "holiday". The RCs just hijacked it. A "rose by any other name is still a rose".
Unprofitable, please read again...angels are not singing or praising a NEW-BORN King... If you cannot speak of the birth of Jesus without using the lies that go along with it like the present tense of angels praising a new born King then it would be best to not bother. Most seasonal songs have some merit but also have much false content. Maybe this is why we have been cursed with so many false perversions of His Word now. In defending that Christ alone is full of grace and not Mary as well, I happened to see that another Bible version also has Stephen as being "full of grace" which is not found in the KJV. Seasonal songs like the contaminated Bible versions are products of the Roman Catholics...some truth but enough lies to lead many astray or,in the case of Christians,at least, steer them to compromise.
Unprofitable, toys with exaggerated body parts, unnatural measurements and whorish attire are evil as are witch dolls,mermaid dolls and toys associated with sorcery and witchcraft. Surely, you would not say that ouija boards, harry potter toys and the like are neutral objects.
Hark! The angels aren't singing "Glory to the new-born King. That is history past. Presently, they are adoring a King who didn't come to give peace but to bring a sword. Matthew 10:34. Many,who observe christmas, including Christians, will be dragging a fir tree into the mix because it is a symbol of that which is eternal. They do this,ironically, by killing it,stringing lights on it and weighing down the branches that hang over the "goodies" below-an apropo representation,albeit, gaudy depiction,of what christmas is really all about- a dead work during a time whereby most are lit, lighting up,strung out,hungover and weighed down in debt over their "goodies" to which those who are spiritual some how want to attach the name of Christ. So...the message conveyed would appear to be that the tree isn't appealing enough to begin with much like the unadulterated Gospel message. The reality of the matter,however,is that the Gospel is more than sufficient on its own without the glitzy,decorative and weighty veneer. Frankly,trees are too;They serve nature better that way. Maybe Christians would better serve the world during this season by keeping Christ out the mess and sticking with the simple truth of the message of Christ-a message
It doesn't matter how other men are depicted but it does matter how Christ is . These "jesus" pictures are out of vain imaginations or, worse yet, from the faux pa's illegitimate likeness of Casare Borgia. Does truth matter at all? Why not become RC and add to the truth? Men are men but God is God. And Dr., your point is irrelevant...it's not analogous
We may not falsely depict Jesus. Same principle...people can vicariously go along with his date of birth and let some long-haired people be a model for Him. Lies! We are not the children of Satan. We should not go along with falsehoods. Using the excuse that He came in the flesh does not allow for us to lie about how He looked. Man cannot adequately portray Him. ...such a Roman Catholic train of reasoning.
All movies about Jesus are a violation in misrepresenting Him. No actor looks like or can represent Him. Words are added or changed from Scripture. Here is another topic whereby we feel like we have license or liberty to tamper with truth. There is a warning of adding to or taking away from Scripture and we are not to use movies or pictures to depict God. "jesus" pictures are abominable.
Dr. Tim, obviously then, his Word is sufficient. And striving not about words do not include words or expressions which are contrary to His Word. We are to defend the truth. I would also submit that decorating or making the Gospel more appealing through vain traditions and glitz will, more likely than not, fall on bad soil. His Word is offensive to sinners. I am encouraged that more people are examining the subject and coming out of it. ...so, on my end, I have witnessed that this is not a ridiculous debate at all as those with whom I have witnessed appreciate the truth.