dacontinent;
[QUOTE said:
I'm still singing the same tune. You spoke of Christmas and Easter. I spoke of celebrating Christ's birth and resurrection. As you have detailed, the concepts are completely dissimilar.
In short,
both are pagan holy days that Christians worship as their own.
As I sit and contemplate deeply on the subject, I realize that there are no Christian (as distinguished from Jewish) holy days. None. Zero. Zilch. Pentecost was already a Jewish holy day and there were never any ordinances given relative to celebrations of Christ's birth or death. So...there are none.
So why do Christians claim that they're worshipping the biblical god when in all actuality, they're observing the one they call satan being that the holy days of Christmas and Easter are of pagan origin? They're using pagan days to worship their god? If I recall correctly, this was forbidden in the bible.
Christians have also chosen Jan 6,7, and 19th for all kinds of reasons. You chose not to speak to those dates. Why? I don't know or care. My point is that Christians CHOOSE to celebrate endearing events on whatever days they like. There are no commands, ordinances, nor scriptures giving directions for or against such celebrations. The only ordinances given by Christ were baptism (based on a decision without regard to days) and the eucharist, which was celebrated EVERY DAY by some members of the early Church. So, if some Christians decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on October 31, it would be just as appropriate as worshipping on any other day of the year. Please understand that it is not the day that is the object of worship. Which pagan gods do Christians worship on any day? Oh...that would be an oxymoron. Even new and ignorant Christians know that.
First of all, not many Christians observe any Christmas in January, then again you already know this, so that's inconsequential. If they do, it's just as wrong too.
Second, as mentioned before, didn't the biblical god forbid his people from using pagan ways of worship to worship him? Yes he did, but this doesn't seem to matter to you.
Here are some verses to back up what I'm stating:
29 "The LORD your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess. But when you have driven them out and settled in their land, 30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, “How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.” 31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. 32 See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it."
Those are clear commmands not to copy other religions, but guess what, some Christians have done just exactly that. You said that it makes no difference. The biblical Moses seems to differ.
Stolen? LOL. Read the gospels. There has never been anyone like Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing to steal or copy.
Either you're in denial or you're just flat out fabricating. You know that there are dozens and dozens of similar saviors from other religions who died and rose from the dead; who did many miracles; who had disciples and followers and who prophecied.
You're completely wrong when making claim that the biblical Jesus wasn't like others and you're certainly wrong when you make claim that nothing from the bible was stolen or copied. Over the past few months, I posted much evidence showing how the Jesus character was similar to other saviors and how writings in the New Testament was similar to pagan writings. The Catholic church has all but admitted this too.
I think you have something confused here. There is not eating of flesh and drinking of blood involved in Passover.
I said
symbolic. Eating the bread is symbolically eating the flesh of the Jesus figure and drinking the wine is symbolically drinking Christs blood. Do you deny any of this?
No face to save here, sir. I said nothing about Easter. I referred to the resurrection of Christ and the custom of celebrating that truth. Easter is a completely different matter.
So Easter has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus? Is that what you're saying? Simple question.
"Considered"? That means that JayRob already understands that they are not "high holy days" at all in Christianity. That means that the arguement that you presenting for Christianity is not about Christianity at all. It is really about public acceptance and retailing. As usual, it is just a matter of letting you voice things until the truth comes out.
The Christmas worship was in Christianity long before "retail" came on the scene. When did they have retailers in 325 AD in the Roman Empire? You keep making a rod for your own back and digging your holes deeper for you to bury yourself in.
It amazes me that you're trying to distance yourself from Christian holy days like Christmas and Easter, without actually admitting it for fear of alienating fellow Christians. Trying to get a straight answer as to whether or not you worship Christmas and Easter was like pulling teeth.
That's funny. I am probably considered one of the most offensive Christians on these boards. I'm not pulling any punches, which is why I delivered my initial post in this thread in no uncertain terms. I will continue.
No you're not, unless it's dealing with pastors, homosexuality and him stepping down from the pulpit. That's when you're offensive. Other than that, you're not much different than others.
Great statements. Exactly the kind of thing that you are noted for. I commend you for your consistency.
Now, when are you going to answer my question? Since you missed it somehow, here it is again.
Are you, JAYROB, aware of any events endearing to CHRISTIANS which might warrant Christians celebrating Halloween? If so, what are they?
The second question is conditional upon the binary answer to the first. That means, if you answer the first in the affirmative, it would be appropriate to identify the events as the proper response to the second question. Otherwise (meaning a negative response to the first question), there is no need to respond to the second question at all. However, you might still choose to do so. Special. REALLY special.
I answered the insignificant and irrelevant question as best I could. What more do you want? Let's not major in minors.
