Posts by aqwsed12345

20

Defend Your Borders or Listen to the Watchtower?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/dnoww-4jfao?si=ehzmc5-gxqukgn7q.

with ww3 on the horizon the watchtower is bringing out their best hits on the issue of neutrality and the latest instalment on jw.org with stephen lett has the theme " why ancient israelites were allowed to go to war but as a christian you can't " or to paraphrase for a 2024 audience " why the modern state of israel is allowed all the nuclear weapons to defend their borders but you as a western european or north american you aren't supposed to compliant against open border policies and uncontrolled illegal migration" isn't that the exact same rhetoric or is it my imagination?

so one of stephen lett's go to arguments is that christians do not take up arms because we don't live in ancient times where israelites had a mandate to occupy the holy land where as we gentile christians we don't.

aqwsed12345

Your interpretation is problematic on several levels, as it misinterprets key biblical passages, conflates apocalyptic imagery with speculative political theories, and projects unsubstantiated connections between unrelated texts.

The claim that the Tower of Babel incident represents God's intention to restrain a one-world government (or New World Order, NWO) misreads the passage in Genesis 11:1–9. The Tower of Babel narrative illustrates God's intervention to prevent human pride and self-reliance from leading to a rebellion against Him. By scattering humanity and confusing languages, God ensured the diversity of nations and cultures. However, there is no biblical basis to suggest this was meant to hold back a future political "NWO." The text speaks about human pride, not geopolitical governance.

The assertion that Babel’s scattering would only last until the 7th king (interpreted here as a specific era in Revelation) is speculative and not grounded in any biblical text. Babel’s significance is spiritual—demonstrating God’s sovereignty over human attempts to establish unity apart from Him—not prophetic of a political timeline.

The claim that the 8th king (Revelation 17:11), the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2), and the Antichrist (1 John 2:18) are the same figure conflates different apocalyptic and eschatological concepts without textual evidence. These figures are described in distinct contexts:

· The 8th King (Revelation 17:11): Symbolizes a succession of earthly powers hostile to God, rooted in the seven preceding kings. This imagery refers to a worldly system of opposition to God, not an individual figure.

· Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3–4): Paul describes a figure who exalts himself above God, but this description is more spiritual and theological, focusing on rebellion and apostasy rather than global political dominance.

· Antichrist (1 John 2:18): John uses the term "antichrist" to describe multiple opponents of Christ, both present and future. It is not tied to the 8th king or a specific political structure.

The attempt to merge these figures and link them to modern political entities or speculative future events reflects an interpretive leap not supported by Scripture.

The interpretation of Revelation as predicting an NWO under the 8th king demonstrates a misunderstanding of apocalyptic literature. Revelation uses symbolic language to address the struggles of the early Church, offering hope for God’s ultimate triumph over evil. The 8th king (Revelation 17:11–17) represents worldly powers opposing God’s kingdom, but there is no indication that this refers to a modern global government or political body.

· Revelation 13:5–7 describes the beast as being given authority to persecute the saints for 42 months, symbolizing a period of intense persecution. This timeframe is not meant to be taken literally but reflects a symbolic period of limited duration during which God’s people endure suffering.

· Revelation 17:13, 17 speaks of the kings giving their authority to the beast. This imagery emphasizes the unity of worldly powers in opposition to God but does not describe a literal transfer of power to a single modern entity.

The claim that the 8th king serves as God’s judgment on His people misreads 1 Peter 4:17, which states that judgment begins with the household of God. This passage refers to the refining and testing of believers through trials, not a political entity. The idea that the 8th king is the instrument of this judgment lacks scriptural support.

Similarly, 2 Thessalonians 1:7–10 describes Christ’s return to bring relief to believers and judgment on unbelievers. It does not mention the 8th king or suggest a timeline involving a world war or a New World Order. The focus is on Christ’s final victory, not on intermediate political developments.

The description of the new heavens and new earth in Revelation 21:1 and 2 Peter 3:13 refers to the ultimate renewal of creation, where God dwells with His people in perfect unity. The interpretation that this involves the erasure of current cultures, languages, and histories misunderstands the text. These passages emphasize restoration and redemption, not the obliteration of human diversity. Zephaniah 3:9 ("a pure language") symbolizes the unity of worship, not a literal homogenization of human language or culture.

Revelation 3:10 refers to a promise of protection for the faithful in Philadelphia during a time of trial. It does not suggest a global judgment tied to a future political regime. The "hour of testing" is symbolic of tribulation that refines believers’ faith, not a specific period governed by an 8th king.

The invocation of contemporary political language (e.g., UN Secretary-General Guterres’ speech) to interpret biblical prophecy is anachronistic and speculative. Revelation and other apocalyptic texts were written to address the concerns of their original audiences and offer hope for all Christians, not to predict specific modern events.

In conclusion, your interpretation demonstrates a pattern of speculative associations, selective proof-texting, and misreading of apocalyptic symbols. The Tower of Babel, the 8th king, the Man of Lawlessness, and the Antichrist are distinct concepts within their respective contexts. The New Heavens and New Earth are about restoration, not cultural erasure. The idea of an NWO arising under the 8th king is unsupported by Scripture and reflects an overreach in interpretation. A proper understanding of these texts focuses on their spiritual and theological messages: God’s ultimate victory over evil, the call to perseverance, and the hope of eternal life with Him.

37

Prepare to get Pelted by Symbolic Hailstones

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/idhmflud3p4?si=9xc4svrhxslduwvz.

so david schafer a member of the teaching commitee and a helper to the governing body has come out yesterday with a new video that goes through the king of the north, the hailstones message and other things in the wake of the possibility of a ww3 and especially now that tensions are escalating with russia so he is making quite a few end time arguments and i will be expanding on those one by one but today let's see what he has about the hailstones message of the end(video) so this is the paragraph in question, paragraph 14 from article 20 of the watchtower 2020 study edition: "sometime after the start of the great tribulation, “the kings of the entire inhabited earth” will form a coalition of nations.

(rev.

aqwsed12345

Your interpretation of the cited biblical passages reflects a highly speculative and selective approach to eschatology, heavily influenced by a framework resembling Jehovah’s Witness theology, but it lacks coherence when viewed in the light of proper biblical exegesis and the broader scriptural context. Let me address its flaws systematically, focusing on the misinterpretation of the cited verses.

Misinterpretation of Matthew 24:7-8 and Revelation 6:2-8

The claim equating World War III with the activity of the horsemen in Revelation 6 and the events of Matthew 24:7-8 is speculative and ignores the nature of apocalyptic literature. The four horsemen represent broader realities—conquest, war, famine, and death—affecting humanity throughout history, not a specific event like WW3. Matthew 24:7-8 describes general signs (wars, famines, earthquakes) that characterize the "beginning of birth pains," which have occurred repeatedly in history, not just in a modern geopolitical context.

The attempt to pinpoint these symbols to a contemporary event, such as a future world war, misuses apocalyptic imagery, which is inherently symbolic, not predictive of specific modern conflicts.

Misinterpretation of Revelation 17:13, 17 and Revelation 13:5

The argument that nations will give their power to the United Nations, making it the 8th king, conflates the symbolic language of Revelation with contemporary political structures without textual support. The "8th king" in Revelation 17:11 is described as arising from the seven kings, symbolizing successive world powers hostile to God, and ultimately heading toward destruction. This is symbolic of worldly opposition to God across ages, not a specific modern political entity like the UN.

Revelation 13:5 speaks of a beast given authority to act for 42 months, symbolizing a time of intense persecution. Associating this with a specific political organization like the UN is speculative and not supported by the text, which focuses on general opposition to Christ’s kingdom rather than any modern geopolitical body.

Equating the 8th King with the King of the North (KOTN)

Equating the "8th king" of Revelation with the "King of the North" in Daniel 11 demonstrates a lack of contextual understanding. The "King of the North" in Daniel refers to historical rulers (e.g., Antiochus IV Epiphanes) within the framework of the Seleucid Empire and the conflicts with the Ptolemaic Kingdom. While some interpret later portions of Daniel 11 as having eschatological significance, there is no textual evidence linking the King of the North to the 8th king or the UN.

Revelation and Daniel use different symbolic frameworks to address distinct themes, and forcing a connection between these figures creates an artificial synthesis not supported by the texts themselves.

Misinterpretation of the "Hour of Test" (Revelation 3:10)

The "hour of test" in Revelation 3:10 is a promise of protection to the faithful in Philadelphia, likely referring to specific trials in their historical context or general persecution faced by believers. It is a stretch to link this to a future global trial involving the UN or a one-world government. Revelation 3:10 focuses on spiritual perseverance, not political events.

The Concept of Wheat and Weeds (Matthew 13:38)

The parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:38 refers to the coexistence of righteous and wicked people within the world until the final judgment. Attempting to assign a specific eschatological timeline (e.g., the 42 months) to this parable misinterprets its focus on the final separation of the righteous and the wicked by God’s angels. The parable emphasizes patience and God’s ultimate justice, not a specific period of tribulation under an 8th king.

Speculation About the Great Crowd (Revelation 7:9, 14)

The "Great Crowd" in Revelation 7:9, 14 represents a multitude from all nations who have come through the "great tribulation," symbolizing faithful believers who remain loyal to God in the face of persecution. Claiming this group will undergo a period of tribulation under the 8th king before unifying in belief introduces speculative details not found in the text. Revelation emphasizes their worship of God and their deliverance, not their temporal journey toward doctrinal unity.

42 Months as a Literal Timeframe

The claim that the 42 months (Revelation 13:5) represents a literal period of future tribulation misreads the symbolic use of numbers in apocalyptic literature. The 42 months (or 1,260 days) symbolizes a limited period of persecution, paralleling similar symbolic timeframes in Daniel. It is not intended as a literal chronological prediction of future geopolitical events.

Misapplication of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 speaks of God’s final judgment and the glorification of believers at Christ’s return. It does not support the claim that believers will endure a specific 42-month tribulation under the rule of an 8th king. Instead, it reassures believers of their ultimate vindication when Christ is revealed in glory.

Summary

This interpretation misuses apocalyptic and symbolic biblical texts, applying them to speculative modern scenarios without textual justification. Revelation and Daniel are not meant to provide a detailed timeline of future political events but to offer hope and assurance to believers facing persecution. Their focus is on God’s ultimate victory, not on specific geopolitical structures or timeframes.

The attempt to link the 8th king, the King of the North, and other figures into a cohesive eschatological framework ignores the unique contexts and purposes of these texts. Such speculative interpretations distract from the spiritual and theological messages of Scripture, which emphasize faithfulness, perseverance, and the certainty of God’s ultimate triumph. Instead of focusing on speculative timelines, a proper understanding of these passages should inspire trust in God’s sovereignty and encouragement to remain faithful in the face of trials.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

It’s true that the Bible does not specify December 25 as Jesus’ birth date, but the absence of this detail does not invalidate the practice of celebrating His birth. The Bible also does not command Christians to observe birthdays, wedding anniversaries, or even to gather on specific days for communal worship, yet these are widely accepted practices in Christian life. The principle of freedom in Christ allows believers to commemorate events in ways that honor God (Romans 14:5-6).

The claim that the celebration of Jesus' birth on December 25 is non-Scriptural assumes that only practices explicitly commanded in the Bible are valid. However, this legalistic approach ignores the fact that many Christian traditions have developed to honor God and deepen faith without being directly prescribed. The choice of December 25 likely stems from theological reasoning, as explained in historical studies—not from pagan worship but from aligning Christ’s birth with the symbolism of light overcoming darkness (e.g., John 1:5).

The celebration was chosen by early Christians, long before it became a widespread tradition. This does not imply "following worldly tradition," but rather utilizing cultural contexts to elevate Christ's significance.

You assume that Christians must reject any tradition not originating directly from Jesus or the apostles. This is inconsistent with Jehovah’s Witnesses' own practices. For instance their conventions, terminology, and organizational structure are not explicitly found in the Bible but were developed later. JWs follow the WTS’ interpretation, a human tradition, while rejecting other forms of Christian tradition. Christianity allows for traditions, provided they align with Scripture’s principles and honor God. The early Church fathers and councils were led by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26), forming traditions that are Christ-centered.

The question about observing Jesus’ death on a Friday rather than strictly on Nisan 14 is based on a misunderstanding of Christian liturgical practice. The choice of Good Friday reflects the chronology of the Passion narrative in the Gospels, which places the Crucifixion on the day before the Sabbath. This is not an abandonment of Nisan 14 but a way to integrate the Jewish calendar’s theological significance into the weekly rhythm of Christian worship.

Unlike Quartodecimanism, which insisted on adhering rigidly to Nisan 14, the Church prioritized the Resurrection’s centrality and its significance for all humanity. The Church’s authority to adapt liturgical practices is supported by Matthew 16:19, where Jesus gives Peter and the apostles the keys to bind and loose.

The selective rejection of customs (e.g., birthdays or Christmas) while accepting others (e.g., wedding anniversaries or conventions) reveals inconsistency. By their logic, any practice with historical connections to non-Christian contexts should be rejected, yet this is neither practical nor Biblically required.

In short, the celebration of Christmas, including its date, is rooted in historical and theological reasoning, not paganism or "worldly tradition." Christians have the freedom to commemorate Christ’s birth as a way of honoring the Incarnation, even if the exact date is unknown. The Bible does not prohibit such celebrations, and early Church practices demonstrate the legitimacy of developing traditions that glorify God. Legalistic objections based on rigid interpretations fail to reflect the liberating message of the Gospel.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

While it is true that the Bible does not explicitly prescribe the celebration of Jesus’ birth, the absence of a command does not imply prohibition. The Bible permits all practices that glorify God, provided they do not contradict His teachings. Celebrating Christ’s birth, like observing Easter, honors His role in salvation history. The centrality of His incarnation is affirmed in Scripture (e.g., John 1:14), and its commemoration aligns with Christian principles.

The Jewish calendar’s lunar-solar system differs from the Gregorian calendar, making direct date alignment impractical. Christianity does not mandate adherence to the Jewish calendar for its celebrations. The choice of December 25 for Christmas reflects the use of the local Roman calendar rather than the Jewish one, emphasizing inculturation without compromising theological truth.

You asked why Christians celebrate on December 25. Early Christians chose this date for several reasons, including its symbolism with the winter solstice, representing Christ as the “Light of the World” (John 8:12). This choice does not stem from a "worldly" origin but reflects theological meaning.

Your concern that Kislev 25 does not always fall on December 25 misunderstands Christian practice. Christmas is not tied to Kislev 25. It is based on the Roman calendar, separate from Jewish calendrical cycles. Similarly, Easter is determined using the Gregorian system, independent of the precise Jewish Nisan 14 date.

The Quartodeciman controversy (2nd–4th centuries) exemplifies why strict adherence to the Jewish calendar was rejected by the Church. Quartodecimans insisted on celebrating Easter on Nisan 14 regardless of the day of the week, in alignment with Jewish Passover. However, the Church affirmed that Christian holidays are celebrated in light of the Resurrection, not bound by the old covenant’s calendar (Colossians 2:16-17). This distinction underscores Christian freedom to determine dates that reflect theological meaning.

Quartodecimanism was deemed heretical because it clung to Judaic customs, undermining the new covenant established by Christ. The same principle applies to your argument about Christmas: Christianity is not obligated to follow the Jewish calendar, nor is it restricted from selecting dates that resonate with its faith.

Tradition plays a vital role in the life of the Church. While Scripture is foundational, not all Christian practices are explicitly detailed in the Bible. The Church has always recognized that certain elements of worship and celebration develop through tradition under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

The accusation that Christmas or other celebrations are "worldly" misrepresents their theological significance. Christians celebrate December 25 not because of cultural conformity but as an expression of faith in the Incarnation. The Church “baptized” cultural customs (like festivals or symbols) to redirect them to Christ, a process of inculturation rather than syncretism.

The New World Translation translates John 17:16 as "they are no part of the world," which implies absolute separation from societal customs. However, the Greek text indicates that Christians are "not of the world," meaning their values are distinct, not that they reject all cultural practices. The NWT’s rendering distorts the passage to support Jehovah's Witnesses' separatist ideology.

This misinterpretation serves to enforce rigid boundaries against practices like celebrating birthdays or holidays, despite the lack of explicit biblical prohibition. It imposes unnecessary legalism rather than reflecting the gospel's freedom.

In conclusion, celebrating Christmas on December 25 is neither unbiblical nor inherently “worldly.” It honors Christ’s incarnation, an essential event in salvation history. The date’s theological symbolism and historical development reflect Christian freedom in worship. Misunderstanding or distorting this practice fails to grasp the inclusive and transformative nature of Christian tradition.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

In John 17:16, Jesus says, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of it” (NIV). The NWT translates this as “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.” The phrase "no part of the world" is an interpretive addition. The Greek text (ouk ek tou kosmou) translates more naturally as "not of the world." This subtle mistranslation introduces an unnecessary absolutism, implying complete detachment from societal practices, which is not the intended meaning of Jesus’ prayer. Jesus is referring to spiritual distinctiveness, not physical separation or rejection of cultural practices. Christians remain in the world but are called to live according to God’s values, not worldly sinful behaviors (John 17:15). The Watchtower Society uses this phrase to justify rejecting neutral societal customs (like birthdays or Christmas), promoting a divisive interpretation that equates cultural participation with spiritual corruption.

It is true that the Bible specifies Nisan 14 as the date of Jesus’ death and commands its commemoration (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). However while Jesus did not command celebrating His birth, He did not forbid it either. Christians are free to honor significant events in salvation history, such as the Incarnation, as long as it aligns with scriptural principles (Romans 14:5-6). Without the Incarnation (John 1:14), there would be no death or resurrection. Celebrating Jesus’ birth reflects the joy and fulfillment of God’s promise (Luke 2:10-14), complementing the commemoration of His death.

According to the Watchtower Society, only the celebrations explicitly prescribed in the Bible can be observed, but the Bible does not establish such a principle. Besides the annual feasts prescribed in the Law, the Jews had both occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah). Jesus Himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and attended the Hanukkah (Feast of Dedication) celebrations, teaching in the Temple in the middle of the festival (John 10:22-23). He never opposed celebrations not mandated by Mosaic Law. The New Testament explicitly teaches that there is no religious significance to regarding one day as better than another. Thus, no one should be compelled to observe any particular day, nor should others be judged for celebrating something (Romans 14:5-12, Colossians 2:16-17).

The claim that December 25 is a "worldly" celebration misunderstands history. December 25 was chosen not to “align” with paganism but to emphasize Jesus as the "Light of the World" (John 8:12), coinciding with the winter solstice when daylight begins to increase. The earliest records of Christmas predate Emperor Aurelian’s Sol Invictus festival (AD 274), disproving the claim that Christians copied it. Romans 14:5-6 allows believers to esteem certain days as special for honoring God. Celebrating Christmas on December 25 does not inherently align Christians with "the world," as the focus remains on Christ’s birth.

The inclusion of Christmas trees, Santa Claus, or gifts is cultural and not mandated by Scripture. These customs, while not rooted in the Bible, can be neutral tools for expressing joy and generosity, provided they do not distract from the holiday’s true meaning. Giving gifts echoes the generosity of the Magi (Matthew 2:11) and reflects the ultimate gift of Jesus to humanity (John 3:16). Symbols like the tree or lights remind Christians of Christ, who brings eternal life (John 1:4) and light into the world. Their origins in pre-Christian customs are irrelevant if their modern meaning is Christ-centered.

Jehovah’s Witnesses inconsistently apply the “pagan origin” argument. The Watchtower has admitted that many customs, such as wedding rings or timekeeping, originated in pagan contexts but are now secular and acceptable (e.g., w98 10/15 pp. 30-31). By their own logic, Christmas traditions—now widely associated with Christ—should not be dismissed solely because of their ancient origins.

In conclusion, the celebration of Christmas is not about adhering to a specific date or pagan customs but about honoring Christ’s Incarnation, a cornerstone of Christian faith. The mistranslation of John 17:16 in the NWT serves to isolate Jehovah’s Witnesses unnecessarily from cultural expressions that can glorify God when done with the right intent.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

Based on Bethlehem's climate, the average temperatures in December are mild because the city lies in a Mediterranean climate zone. The daytime temperatures in December currently range from 12–15 °C (54–59 °F), while nighttime temperatures often drop to 5–7 °C (41–45 °F).

Sheep have thick wool coats that provide excellent insulation against the cold. As a result, sheep can survive even in freezing conditions, provided they have enough food and are kept in sheltered locations protected from wind and precipitation. According to the Bible, the shepherds were out in the open field with their flocks, which does not necessarily rule out the December period, particularly in milder winters. The shepherds could have made fires to keep themselves warm and to protect both themselves and the flock from the cold. Fire-making was a common practice among ancient shepherds, especially at night when the temperatures were cooler and there was a need to ward off predators.

The fire would have provided warmth, making it feasible for the shepherds to sleep under the open sky despite the colder weather. The fire would also have offered protection against wild animals and helped the shepherds stay awake to keep watch over their flocks. Given climatic variations at that time, it is possible that winters were milder than those in modern Bethlehem, making outdoor stays for the shepherds more manageable. If grazing conditions and weather permitted, flocks could even be kept outdoors in winter, particularly if there was no alternative.

Ancient shepherds were far more adapted to the challenges of nature than we might imagine from a modern perspective. Since woolly sheep tolerate cold relatively well, shepherds did not necessarily need to keep them in shelters at all times. Moreover, communal fire-making and proper clothing could have helped them endure colder nights under the open sky. Thus, the shepherds' fire-making habits and the sheep's ability to withstand cold make it plausible that Jesus could have been born in December.

At the time of Jesus's birth (approximately 4 BCE to 6 CE), the Mediterranean region was experiencing the Roman Warm Period, which lasted from around 250 BCE to 400 CE. This period featured milder winters and slightly warmer average temperatures than those of the Middle Ages or the present day. It is believed that the annual average temperatures were somewhat higher than they are today. This would have resulted in milder cold during the winter months and slightly warmer conditions in summer.

In Bethlehem, nighttime temperatures during this period were likely in the range of 5–10 °C (41–50 °F). Due to the characteristics of the Mediterranean climate, the winter months were wetter. Rain or occasional snowfall might have occurred, but sustained freezing temperatures or significant snow accumulation were highly unlikely.

The milder climate could have supported agricultural activities and shepherding. During winter months, the absence of severe frosts could have allowed pastures to remain partially green, enabling animals to be kept outdoors more easily, especially in winters that were not particularly harsh.

Thus, during Christ's birth, Bethlehem's climate may have been slightly milder and warmer than it is today, particularly during the winter months. Consequently, it is conceivable that shepherds were out in the fields with their flocks even in December, especially during a mild winter. However, nighttime cold and precipitation would still have posed challenges, which could have been mitigated by fire-making.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

The Bible does not specify the exact date of Jesus’ birth, but this absence does not make commemorating His birth unbiblical. The event itself—God becoming incarnate—is profoundly significant to Christianity (John 1:14). Celebrating it on December 25 is a tradition that focuses on this theological truth, not the specific date.

Just because the Bible does not command the annual celebration of Jesus' birth does not mean it forbids it. The Bible also does not explicitly command wedding anniversaries, yet these are widely accepted as meaningful expressions of love. Similarly, celebrating Christmas reflects joy and gratitude for Christ’s incarnation. So while it's true that the Bible does not explicitly command celebrating Jesus' birth, it does not forbid it either. Christianity has a rich tradition of commemorating significant events in salvation history (e.g., the death and resurrection of Christ), even if not directly mandated.

Jesus' death is indeed central to salvation (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). However, His birth (the Incarnation) is equally foundational to the Christian faith. Without His coming in the flesh (John 1:14), there would be no death or resurrection to redeem humanity. Celebrating the Incarnation acknowledges God's love in sending His Son as the light of the world (John 3:16; Luke 2:10-14).

In Romans 14:5-6, Paul affirms the freedom to honor certain days as special to the Lord, provided the intention is to glorify God. This principle applies to Christmas, as it is an expression of faith and thanksgiving for Jesus’ birth.

While Jesus celebrated Jewish feasts like Hanukkah (John 10:22), which is not explicitly commanded in the Torah, His participation shows that observing religious traditions is acceptable when they align with God’s purposes. Similarly, Christmas celebrates the Incarnation, a central event in God’s redemptive plan.

Luke 2:8 does not exclude the possibility of Jesus being born in December. Shepherds often tended flocks year-round in mild climates like Bethlehem’s. Historical climate data supports that nighttime temperatures were not prohibitive for outdoor grazing during winter months in the region. The argument about shepherds not being in the fields during winter is speculative. Luke 2:8 simply states they were "keeping watch over their flock by night," which could happen during winter if the region's mild climate allowed. Moreover, John 10:22, which mentions winter, does not conflict with this; it demonstrates the diversity of weather conditions in the region.

Commemorating Jesus' death (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) does not negate the importance of His birth. Without the Incarnation, His sacrificial death and resurrection would not have been possible. Both events are integral to Christian theology and worthy of reflection and celebration.

While non-Christians may participate in secular aspects of Christmas, the Christian celebration focuses on Christ. The claim that celebrating Christmas dishonors Christ confuses worldly commercialization with the theological focus of the holiday. Labeling Christmas as "worldly" dismisses centuries of Christian tradition. The celebration is not about following "the world" but about honoring the Incarnation of Christ. The "worldliness" associated with modern Christmas (e.g., consumerism, Santa Claus) is not inherent to the holiday itself but reflects secular culture. Christians are free to celebrate Christmas in a way that focuses on Christ, free from these distractions.

December 25 was chosen for theological reasons, symbolizing Christ as the "light of the world" during the darkest time of the year. This choice does not depend on pagan origins but on the transformative message of the Gospel, which brings light into darkness (John 1:5).

The claim that Christmas is dishonoring to Jesus because it is not explicitly commanded conflates tradition with Scripture. Mark 7:8 critiques traditions that nullify God’s commandments, not traditions that glorify Him. The Christian tradition of celebrating Jesus' birth is consistent with biblical principles of gratitude, worship, and reflection on God's redemptive plan.

So the celebration of Christmas is a meaningful tradition rooted in Christian theology. It honors the Incarnation, expresses gratitude for God’s love, and invites reflection on Christ’s mission. The absence of a specific command does not diminish its legitimacy; rather, it highlights the freedom Christians have to glorify God through various expressions of worship.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@KalebOutWest

Indeed, Christmas is NOT the "birthday" of Jesus, but the celebration of his birth, let's make this distinction. The celebration of his birth does not have to coincide with the actual day of his birth, this was the case of the Queen Elizabeth II:

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-did-queen-have-two-birthdays

As we do not know the exact date of Christ’s birth, the date of December 25 for Christmas may have been arbitrary. The Church could have chosen another date on which to celebrate the birth of Christ. One reason December 25 may have been deemed suitable is its proximity to the winter solstice. After that date the days start to become longer, and thus it is at the beginning of a season of light entering the world (cf. John 1:5). The summer solstice—after which the days start to get shorter—falls near June 24, on which the Church celebrates the birth of John the Baptist, who declared of Christ, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

In response to the claim that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, this is a misconception popularized by American puritan Protestants who were hostile to Catholicism and fabricated the "Sol Invictus" myth. Ancient sources do not support this claim. Unfortunately, contemporary Jesuits, in their defense of the faith, aprioristically argued that this instead proved the legitimacy of Christianity, which - as is well documented - baptized the "seeds of the word" found in paganism. However, this was not the case here. Pagan emperors, following the example of Kim Jong-il and Stalin, attempted to appropriate the already existing Christian festival... unsuccessfully.

The date of Jesus' birth was not "decided upon," but celebrated in Rome as early as the 3rd century, well before the artificially established festival of "Sol Invictus." (This is why the introduction of "Sol Invictus" was unsuccessful, even among pagans.)

The birth date of Mithras is also often cited. This is a fallacy propagated by the "Zeitgeist" movement; original sources should be consulted to understand when and how Mithras was celebrated. This is akin to claiming expertise in wilderness survival and bushcraft based solely on watching the Rambo movies! Additionally, the Hellenized cult of Mithras is later than Christianity. Also, it is a common sense truth in religious studies that formal similarities may either represent completely different meanings or have no genetic relationship between two religions. Furthermore, it is demonstrable that, partly due to chronological reasons, homologous religious phenomena were incorporated into the Mithras cult in competition with Christianity, making it contrived and unviable. It was about as widespread as any modern occult sect.

As for the actual date of Jesus' birth, Gustav Teres attempted to determine this using astronomical methods in his book "The Bible and Astronomy" (2000). The date of celebration is related to the theory of "integral age." According to tradition, prophets (messengers of God) die on the day of their conception or birth. Thus, Jesus, who according to Christian belief is the prototype of the prophets, was crucified on Nisan 14, which was identified with the Greek Artemision 14. In Egypt, this was dated to April 6, 30 AD, and in the West to March 25, 33 AD. (Note: in these two years, the Jewish Passover coincided with the Sabbath.) This led to the erroneous dating of Jesus' birth. Based on the mystique of 33 years, whereas he might have been around 40 years old (even the image on the Shroud of Turin depicts such a man), it is believed he was born around 7 BC, corresponding to the Hellenic acme (prime of life).

Therefore, Christmas did not precisely coincide with the solstice (only Stalin's falsified birthday did), but was determined by adding nine months to the date of his death. This resulted in December 25 in Rome and January 6 in Alexandria, as both places chose different years (30 and 33, respectively) when Jewish Passover and Nisan 14 aligned.

Christian teachings are not fundamentally affected by the exact date of Jesus' birth or the date of the celebration. The pagan festival that can be demonstrably proven is the wheat consecration procession. Today, its significance is mostly as a tourist attraction. However, the inclusive Catholic perspective views paganism not as inherently "ab ovo" evil but as preserving fragments of the original revelation.

Since the Watchtower literature and JW identity rely heavily on Hislop's theory, it is worthwhile to outline this question.

The verses cited in this regard only serve as a legitimate argument against syncretism or false irenicism, but not against inculturation.

This double standard is also interesting, since while Christmas etc. JWs refers to the "pagan origin", while in other cases they admitted that it does not matter what the origin of a pagan is, pagan or not pagan, but:

... but of some, they are :-)

So why can't the SAME standard be used to judge ALL customs?

By the way, this "pagan orign stuff is bad" ideology ironically tempted Catholicism as well, and it didn't exactly work in the Church's favor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy

In short: When the Jesuits and the Franciscans began their mission in China, they tried to use the beliefs of the Chinese with the purpose of an apologetic bridge, for example they translated the word "God" as Shàngdì.

The Dominicans said that this was wrong, since Shàngdì was already the name of the supreme deity in the old Chinese pantheon, so it was of "pagan origin", so a term for God that was not yet "contaminated" should be used. They defended themselves by saying that this is essentially the same as by linking it with the "unknown god" as described in Biblical passage of Acts 17:23–31. The Dominicans complained to the Pope, citing that such translation may associate the Christian God to Chinese polytheism.

Unfortunately, the Pope at the time listened to them, and the result was the banning of Christian missions by the emperor. Without this stupid "pagan influence" fallacy, there is a good chance that China would be a Christian country today, and history would be very different.

In the 20th century, the Pope revoked this ban, but Chinese Catholics still call God Tiānzhǔ.

The point is: Inculturation is a legitimate missionary tool, as long as it does not result in an essential compromise in its content of the Christian religion.

By the way, as far as I know, the very first historical source that claims that Christmas falls on December 25th because they wanted to override Sol Invictus is from the 12th century and is attributed to Dionysius bar Salibi. So there is not a single contemporary source that would have claimed something similar, the first speculation about it is almost a thousand years later. In the twelfth century, the Syriac theologian Dionysius Bar-Salibi wrote that December 25 was established in the West as the feast of Christ’s Nativity to coincide with the pagan Roman celebration of the Invincible Sun. He wrote:

This concept became popular in the West particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. More recent scholarship has shown that Christmas had been observed for years before Emperor Aurelian established the pagan festival in AD 274.

More recent studies have shown that many of the holiday’s modern trappings do reflect "pagan customs" borrowed much later, as Christianity expanded into northern and western Europe. The Christmas tree, for example, has been linked with late medieval druidic practices. This has only encouraged modern audiences to assume that the date, too, must be pagan.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas/

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

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—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

The argument that a direct command from Jesus is necessary to justify celebrating His birth overlooks key aspects of Christian worship and the nature of tradition. While the Bible does not explicitly command the celebration of Christ's birth, neither does it forbid it. In Romans 14:5-6, Paul allows believers to esteem certain days as special to honor God. Christmas, like other traditions, can be celebrated as a way to glorify God and reflect on the significance of the Incarnation.

The Bible commands the remembrance of Jesus' death because of its direct role in salvation (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). However, this does not diminish the theological importance of His birth. The Incarnation (John 1:14; Luke 2:10-14) is central to the Gospel, as it represents God taking on human nature to redeem humanity. Celebrating Christmas highlights this aspect of salvation history.

The association of Christmas with "the world" ignores its distinctly Christian origins. Early Christians chose December 25 to celebrate Jesus' birth as an opportunity to proclaim Christ to a pagan society. The fact that non-Christians also celebrate does not invalidate the Christian significance of the holiday. Like Paul in Athens (Acts 17:22-34), Christians can use cultural moments to point to Christ.

Jesus never condemned traditions outright but opposed those that undermined God’s commandments (Mark 7:8). Traditions like Christmas can enrich Christian faith when they focus on Christ. Celebrating Jesus' birth fosters gratitude and joy for God’s redemptive work.

So the absence of a direct biblical command to celebrate Jesus' birth does not make it unbiblical. Christians are free to commemorate the Incarnation in ways that honor God and deepen their faith. The celebration of Christmas, far from being "worldly," is a testimony to Christ’s light entering the darkness of the world (John 8:12).