A Sea Breeze quote "associated with God's Birthday"---that in itself is a lie or self deception...#1 xmas isn't Jesus Birthday and #2 Jesus isn't God Almighty
Are Atheists Hypocritical in Celebrating Christmas?
by Sea Breeze 68 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
PioneerSchmioneer
enoughisenough:
I believe Sea Breeze was speaking in the vernacular when using the expression "God's birthday."
Even Christians don't always go around being theologically exact and can call Christmas everything from "Jesus' birthday" to a "celebration of the birth of our Father in heaven."
None of this is technically correct, as I pointed out in a post on this thread earlier before.
After leaving the Watchtower, I used to teach both Catholic catechism and Protestant religion for a couple of decades. Christianity does not celebrate any "birthday" on the Christian yearly calendar, known as the "liturgical" calendar. It only celebrates or honors the death of martyrs, including that of Jesus Christ, on the day they died or were buried (such as "Good Friday" for Jesus).
Christmas (or as it is called on the Liturgical Calendar "The Nativity") is a religious observance to remind Christians of the miracle of the Incarnation, namely as described in Isaiah 7:14 where it reads that "he shall be called Immanuel," which Matthew explains means "God Is With Us," at chapter 1:23 of his gospel.
There were various Eucharistic feasts that were celebrated in honor of the miracle of the Incarnation (the belief that God became Man in the Person of Jesus Christ) throughout the early church, but they landed on different places on the Liturgical Calendar throughout the year.
One of the earliest celebrations of the Incarnation is known from the Jewish Christians that has come down to us in the Liturgy of Saint James. The written form of this mass that we now have in its current form is from the early 300s (probably right before the formal canonization of the New Testament) but portions of it do go back to before the Second Jewish Revolt.
There is a section for a celebration of the Incarnation. Still sung as part of the Roman Catholic liturgy today during the Christmas season, there is a hymn entitled Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence, and it is notably still part of the Night Prayer for Catholics beginning on Christmas Eve until February 2nd in the Liturgy of the Hours.
It was not until Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and there was a demand to thus standarize the liturgy for the civilized world that the a date was settled for the Nativity. As we all know, we ended up with the date we now have--and it is not one day, but actually an 8-day feast called an octave.
As to Jesus being "God Almighty," Christmas, being the feast of the Incarnation and not a birthday--the "Incarnation" is the doctrine of God-made-man. That is the literal definition of the word "incarnation."
There is nothing wrong with using wording like "Jesus' birthday" or "God's birthday" or an atheist joining in the fun any more than a Jew eating attending a holiday party and eating a Christmas cookie or a non-Catholic celebrating St. Patrick's Day. You don't have to believe in a doctrine to be happy and rejoice and wish for peace to your fellow man.
But you do have to be a JW to be a real Scrooge and rotten and judgmental and think you are better than everyone else.
There's an old saying: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." There's a new saying too: "Read the room."
-
TonusOH
SeaBreeze: If you really want to promote natural materialism, all you have to do is come up with plausible explanations for the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus.
Sometimes I wonder if you're just having us on. The 'facts' in that article are all backed only by Bible verses. Which means that none of their claimed facts are corroborated at all. In other words, they're claims, not facts. Do the people writing these articles understand what the word means? I'm not quite sure if they do and are simply trying to decieve people, or if they're so determined to believe in something that they don't realize that they're making things up? Do they understand that when they set the bar so low, they also legitimize the claims made by other religions, including those that have been long abandoned by humanity?
-
jhine
In my church we have sometimes got the children singing Happy Birthday to Jesus . Jan from Tam.
-
Reasonfirst
The real santa, resurrected...Oh!! Sorry!!! I meant to type reconstructed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sCUp1127PA&t=27s
Well, at least their doing better than bloody old yhwh, whose given up resurrecting anyone.
-
Sea Breeze
I believe Sea Breeze was speaking in the vernacular when using the expression "God's birthday."
I guess I could have used the term the Creators' Birthday. The Deity, Death, Burial, & Resurrection of Jesus is the earliest Christology. Anything that denies that, is simply not of Christian origin. Only God could resurrected himself from the dead...which is what Jesus predicted he would do. That is what this is all about. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, it's almost God's birthday. Thank you God for taking on human flesh and forever existing from that time forward in the person of Jesus, son of Mary.
John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Colossians 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities
Philippians 2:9–11 says that the name of Jesus is the name above all names, even higher than the name JEHOVAH. “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow
Sometimes I wonder if you're just having us on.
@TonusOH, They are facts, accepted by scholars who are Jewish, Christian and skeptic. Get over it. No one is immune to scruitny. Like any atheist all you have to do is provide plausible explanations for the historical FACTS surrounding the resurrection in order to be taken seriously. If you are unable or unwilling, what exactly is the problem with getting on board?
-
Rivergang
When it is all said and done, for most people in this part of the world, Christmas is just another excuse to get on the booze.
ie. Engage in practices which predate Christianity by a long shot.
-
TonusOH
SeaBreeze: They are facts
No, they are not. They are claims, found in texts whose original writers are unknown and whose reliability is questionable. Who are these scholars who accept unproven claims as fact? If they are "historical facts," where is the consensus among historians? Why don't they accept these "historical facts"?
Under this approach, every religious claim to be found in their writings are facts that require plausible explanations in order to reject them. Islam? True. Hinduism? True. The Greek pantheon? True. Mormonism? True. Scientology? True! If you can't account for their historical facts, your weekend schedule looks to become quite busy in the future.
-
Sea Breeze
@TonusOH
The consensus among most all scholars who publish in this area are several facts surrounding he Resurrection of Jesus. You cannot change that, no matter how much you deny, run, and suppress it. You do not get to personally determine reality. That is truly delusional. You have never offered even one alterantive opinion on any of these facts; because you know there just aren't any good answers. So, like many ideolouges, you just wave the hand and say, there is no evidence. I got that treatment from the day I was born in a 4th gen JW family. No thank you.The bible calls this a mental condition known as suppression in Romans 1: 18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
Bart Ehrmann the leading atheist biblical scholar calls people who do not believe Jesus existed "mythicists". Whether a person like you is a mythicist, or a person suffering from a self-imposed suppression, it really makes no difference. You are disconnected from reality by either account.
-
TonusOH
SeaBreeze: The consensus among most all scholars who publish in this area are several facts surrounding he Resurrection of Jesus.
You are linking to an article titled "Twelve Undeniable Facts That Prove The Resurrection." Is this what "most all scholars" in this field accept as a standard of evidence? An article that attempts to use the Bible --and only the Bible-- to corroborate claims from the Bible?
You mention Habermas's 'minimal facts approach.' Most of those are also claims which have not been corroborated. But let's accept his claims for a moment: we end up with a man named Jesus who preached and built up a following and who was executed by the Romans. His followers then claimed that they saw him alive after his death. The "most all scholars" you refer to accept that his followers made this claim- they do not accept that those claims are true.
As for Ehrman: you don't think Ehrman is claiming that Jesus was resurrected, do you? He accepts that the Biblical character is based on a real person, not that this person did anything aside from what any other normal human could do. I neither accept nor deny that a preacher named Jesus might be the actual inspiration for the Bible character. I am pointing out that your claims regarding his divinity are just that: claims, not facts. I am pointing out that your evidentiary standard for these claims is very low, and this hurts your case.
I'll let a Christian explain just a few of the problems with Habermas's approach: