John UK wrote:
Hey, thanks to June, sc and sister B for your comments and encouragement after I was set upon by a band of ruffians yesterday.

James Thomas wrote:
Funny, he told me it was because he continually demanded each day to tell everyone in the class the story about a man named Jed and insisted all his classmates to call him Jethro.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Brother Lurker, enjoy the time with the grandkids and those people who bring them to your house. God’s blessings to you brother

Our youngest two grands (10 and 26 months) live five hours away so we don't get to see them nearly as often as we would like. I hope you and your bride are enjoying your grands.... two I believe or have you added since we last talked?

John UK wrote:
You never answered my question.
So I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you.
BO,
I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you.
James,
I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you.
Anyone else,
I have no desire to continue this exercise in futility with you.
Now you can all gather round the camp fire and sing Gin Gan Gooly etc and high five everyone. After all, you can do as you wish. Call it January 3rd day, and don't forget to bring your Gooly. Tomorrow is January 4th day, and then it's January 5th Day. Not.

It has never been my purpose to upset you and since I obviously have, I apologize and ask you to forgive me.

But my question seems perfectly legitimate and appropriate as you've know me for many years.... you know my heart towards God. So my question was meant to put your position to a practical test.

John UK wrote:
Okay bro.

"This coming Saturday my wife and I will celebrate Christmas for a couple hours with our children and grandchildren. It is the only time of the year we are able to collect them all at one time to our home. Is it your position that in so doing we are violating one or both of the first two commandments of the Decalogue?"

John UK wrote:
Lurker, to resort to partial quoting to bolster your point is unbecoming, and not like you at all. Here is the complete quote, and I will answer your question, even though you are unable to answer mine about the 36 holy days which the CoE celebrates every year. I would love to know what you think about the CoE celebrating these 36 holy days, which include christmass and easter and epiphany and 33 others.

No, I didn't say that a Christian must "read between the lines" of the first two commandments. What you must do is read the commandments, and see what God is saying. Once you grasp that, you can then say, "transgression of the law is sin" If anyone breaks the first two commandments, they have sinned.

This coming Saturday my wife and I will celebrate Christmas for a couple hours with our children and grandchildren. It is the only time of the year we are able to collect them all at one time to our home. Is it your position that in so doing we are violating one or both of the first two commandments of the Decalogue?

Buckeyes wrote:
(TMC) @ Lurker
Yes, that is it! Thank you for the article, it is very interesting; I’ve not gotten a chance to view the video yet, but will when I can!
BTW, did you see the response rhyme in the comments?
“To follow you, I’m not content,
Until I know which way you went.”

John UK wrote:
1) I didn't say that.

2) Lurker, here is the list of holy days in the CoE. Now you tell me which one is not sin and ought to be celebrated by all Christians.

2) Diversion and rabbit trail. No one has insisted that Christmas should be celebrated by all born again Christians yet you are saying it should not be celebrated by any because it is sin. Huge difference.

John UK wrote:
My assertion was made to show Christopher the difference between what he believes and I believe. I took his assertion which says that manmade aspects of the christmas holiday have no place in christendom, and I increased it to say that all the christmass holiday is manmade, and is therefore sin, and against God's will.
I have established it in mine own mind from scripture that it is sin and against the will of God, and that he laments the christmass holidays every year, just as I do. If anyone can show me that christmass annual holidays are biblical, I promise you, I will celebrate them along with everyone else.
The "key" to understanding this dilemma is found in a very detailed study of the first two commandments, not skimming the surface, but getting right down into the very depths of God's mind....

John UK wrote:
Good!
So you're a Yea-sayer, brother.
What do I say?
I don't believe that the manmade aspects of the Christmas holiday (which is every aspect) have any place within Christendom, therefore it is sin.
It all comes down to Sola Scriptura and Regulative Principle, that is the "key" issue.

That's pretty serious stuff, John. The apostle John said sin is the transgression of the law and I believe it was Paul who said that where there is no law there is no sin therefore on the last day the law is imposed (books are opened) by God so that sin may be imputed.

Buckeyes wrote:
(TMC)
@Lurker Hope you have a Blessed evening!
One of the Elders at our church shared how when he was about 10 years old he stumbled across a particular headstone in an old graveyard that he can still quote verbatim. He was not saved at the time and it really shook him. I don’t know it exactly but it roughly was
something about passing by,
“As you are, so once was I,
As I am, so you must be,”
then a line that ends with “me”

Perhaps this is the epitaph:

"Remember me as you pass by,
As you are now, so once was I,
As I am now, so you must be,
Prepare for death and follow me."

It certainly should shake up an unbeliever.

The following site has more information which may be of interest:

http://www.vastpublicindifference.com/2010/02/remember-me-as-you-pass-by.html

The comments which follow the article are also very informative. Be sure to watch the video of Londonderry, NH recommended in one of the comments as it has the epitaph on a gravestone.

Dr. Tim wrote:
Good point, Lurker. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and once I no longer inhabit this mound of clay I couldn’t care less what they do with it. The only reason I would want a tombstone is to have an inscription on it that would serve as one last opportunity to invite people to come to Christ. That’s why I have requested that Isaiah 55:6 be engraved on it.

Buckeyes wrote:
(TMC)
I’m sure the Lord will have no problem putting folks back together for the Resurrection, even Wycliffe. That said, I do find it interesting that archeologists can tell when many Pagan cultures adopted Christianity by the fact they started burying their dead in hope of Christ’s return, instead of burning them. I think it serves as a fascinating final witness- apparently even hundreds of years later.
I also think graveyards remind people of their own end; a well-fertilized flower bed not so much.

Dr. Tim wrote:
A true and sensible statement, Lurker. I sure hope we can wrap up this patter before Confederate Memorial Day. I need to store my Christmas lights and get the musket and kepi out of the attic.

Some days your lighthearted humor is the only thing that makes sense to me so know that you are appreciated.

Buckeyes wrote:
(TMC) @sc
We’ve gone back and forth on this topic for years. I appreciate that you and other former RCs have un-scriptural associations with December 25th as an obligatory “holy” day simply because of your past. As I’ve said again and again I’ve no problem with you and others not celebrating, much like the weaker brother that cannot eat meat offered to idols.
However, I do take issue when false historical claims as to the origins of words and false timelines are presented over and over and over again. Propagating the same urban legends year after year- misleading and binding the consciences of others with lies is wrong.

I posted one comment early on and have remained silent on the subject of Christmas since. But one thing has stood out to me as I watched the discussion. No one who believes there is nothing wrong with celebrating the birth of Christ with a clear conscience toward God has tried to convince the naysayers to change their minds. Yet the same liberty of conscience is not reciprocated. I wonder why that is. Do they think Christmas is inherently evil simply because Rome has claimed it?

Just going by what Jesus said wrote:
Matthew 22:35-40
If someone will show me where Jesus condemns same sex relationships I’ll be very glad to join you in condemning this great man who is serving the Lord.

While Jesus didn't say it, I doubt He'd contradict His Father.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
I am no big fan of open borders, but the Trump administration's cures for a problem such as that, sometime to makes various cures look worse than the illness, as two following Protestants wrote
excerpt from: "Donald Trump's Immigration Policies Could Threaten Religious Liberty"
[ https://tinyurl.com/zk4qc43

Luke 16:25-26 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you **there is a great gulf fixed**: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Now the USA certainly isn't the third heaven but if a biblical principle is sought after.... why not this one which stands in contrast to all the other fuzzy "principles"? One can't get to the third heaven without an immigrant visa issued by the Son for He alone is the way.

Myron Baughman wrote:
Witchcraft is only icing on the cake for the Devil and his minions. The real power is in State Socialism (the Beast) tied in with the approved Anti-Christ Religion of Islam. Catholicism will be totally corrupted by end times by Islam, thinking to join the two peacefully together, forming the bloody world religion found in Revelation. The false prophet who was dead but now lives, is of course, Mohammad.

Fast forward to Rev 19:20 where the sea and earth beasts are cast alive into the lake of fire..... then back to Daniel 7:11 where another picture is given of the same event in the same timeline just before the millennial reign of Christ (Daniel 7:13-14). When Daniel 7 is considered in context, it's not likely the false prophet is Mohammed.

B. McCausland wrote:
If ever Xmass had a decent or valid religious practice and context in some time past, it's materialistic side has been powerfully hijacked by secularism and its profits to the point of no return as you say.
It's perpetuation feeds and depends on the ongoing myth of the Santa guru, but needs the apeacing religious factor to navigate the compromise due to the substantial evangelical or nominal Christian contingent.
Eventually, when society has become mainly atheistic, the celebration will return to its origins of a winter solstice festival, as Easter is intensingly becoming the spring celebration of life already in many European secularized countries.
Of course, Santa will remain part of the myth as a substitute of deity, a false god that is ever-present, omniscient, a rewarder of practice and benefactor of the helpless.
In short, this will remain that way because for the unbelieving the powerless Xmass babe 'cannot' render the same, or any relevant tangible 'good'.
To the true believer however, the Christ of redemption will remain what has always been, the biblical sin bearer, separated from sinners.

It's not going to go away out of our society so why fight against it?

Would anyone fly a rainbow flag in front of their house in commemoration of God's covenant with Noah? Of course not yet there are those who annually fight to keep Christ in the holiday just so they can argue against it. Seems rather pointless to me.