What does Christmas mean to you?

[bookworm_cn317]

To me, Christmas means being with your loved ones, as you enjoy the gifts that you just received.

And when I was younger, it meant annoyance at certain relatives for giving me gifts I didn't want and then complaining to my mom that I don't have manners. I have manners, I just choose to use them around people who respect me & treat me like a perfectly capable human being.

 

[tellner]

It's not my holiday, so it doesn't mean too much except, as Kacey says, everyone else is having a holiday so I get time off.

There is an old story about various people being interviewed about Christmas and how they celebrate it.

The Catholic family said "We go to Midnight Mass. Then we get up early in the morning and go to Christmas Mass. We have breakfast, open the presents, and later on we have a big dinner."

The Protestant family said "We get up early in the morning. We open presents and have breakfast. Then we go to put on our best clothes, go to church and have a big dinner."

The Jewish family said "We get out of bed late. We have a long, leisurely breakfast. Then we get dressed and go out. We wander down to our warehouse, look at all the empty shelves and sing 'What a Friend We Have in Jesus'."

 

[Last Fearner]

What does Christmas mean to you?

"Christ Mass" ; The festival of Christ which celebrates the arrival of God on earth, in the flesh, the son of man. Does it matter when the festival is celebrated as to the day Jesus was born? No. The festival celebrates Anno Domini (A.D.), the year of our Lord. This celebration includes remembering the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, the fulfilling of the prophecy of the Birth in Bethlehem, the visiting of the three kings (wisemen), the roman census which caused them to return to Nazareth, and the decision of King Herod to kill the babies under the age of two, which also fulfilled the prophecies. Each of these events, including the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist which brought the Holy Spirit to anoint Him all pertain to Christmas and lead to the resurrection, and return of Christ to the right hand of the Father.

Those who associate the festival season of Christmas with shopping, gifts, charities, crowded stores, and other modern frills simply miss the point. Those things are social events which can be performed in the spirit of Christianity, through the habit of family tradition, or the motivation of greed. If good comes of these actions, then all the better, but they do not diminish the reality of Christ, nor demean the reason for celebrating what the profits predicted, what God promised, and what most fail to appreciate.

Since some have replied to this thread with a rather dim view of the validity of Jesus as the anointed one, (based on their beliefs - or lack thereof), I shall reply with my reason for believing in Christmas as a significant religious holiday. Whether you know it or not, believe it or not, or can prove it or not: God is the creator, and all things are His creation. Failure to appreciate this, or understand it because of "human intellect" which believes scientific misdirection, and questioning all the evil and misfortune of the world, does not change the Truth.

In my opinion, anyone who rejects the reality of God, the authority of Jesus, and the notion of Christmas and Easter as frivolous, meaningless holidays without having fully read and studied the Holy Bible, and other relevant ancient documents (not just listened to superficial reports from others - but seriously researched it yourself), then you are acting on ignorance about a very serious subject.

What does it mean to me?

Christmas = A gift. The gift of a promise for redemption and the forgiveness of sins, to free God's children from the bonds and captivity of sin - to break the bonds of eternal death for those who have sinned.

Easter = The promise fulfilled.

Regardless of what confusion exists over other ancient festivals and customs that resemble Christian celebrations of the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, these moments in history are well documented, and were established by God for the forgiveness of sins. We celebrate that gift by sharing gifts with others, and remembering the sacrifice that Jesus made - - an innocent man crucified for our sins. His blood shed as a sacrificial lamb so that we may have everlasting life - - after physical death. He was born for this purpose. His whole life was for this purpose. Therefore, Christmas and Easter are linked in a chain of events which were foretold by the prophets long before Jesus was born. I don't believe it is sensible to consider one, without linking it to the other.

I don't mean to offend anyone here who has different beliefs, but these are mine. Believe what you want, but do so based on information about these events, and not just a blanket denial because they don't sound plausible to the "logical brain," or because the packaging of the holiday has gotten out of hand by many who don't even follow the Christian faith.

Respectfully,
D. J. Eisenhart
______________________
Last Fearner

 

[heretic888]

In my opinion, anyone who rejects the reality of God, the authority of Jesus, and the notion of Christmas and Easter as frivolous, meaningless holidays without having fully read and studied the Holy Bible, and other relevant ancient documents (not just listened to superficial reports from others - but seriously researched it yourself), then you are acting on ignorance about a very serious subject.

What about those of us who have researched this stuff and come to the very obvious and very historical conclusion that these purported "Christian" holidays are just a repackaging of Pagan holidays??

Hell, Christians didn't even celebrate this stuff until the 4th century.

Regardless of what confusion exists over other ancient festivals and customs that resemble Christian celebrations of the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, these moments in history are well documented, and were established by God for the forgiveness of sins.

No, these moments in "history" are not "well documented". Otherwise, there wouldn't be so much debate about them, even among Christians.

 

[Last Fearner]

What about those of us who have researched this stuff and come to the very obvious and very historical conclusion that these purported "Christian" holidays are just a repackaging of Pagan holidays??

Hell, Christians didn't even celebrate this stuff until the 4th century.

You might be right about the celebrations being "repackaged." There are many similarities, and probably the carry over of specific rituals modified for Christian purposes. Of course, this does not mean that the Christian events did not occur, nor that Jesus was the Christ. Those debates are mostly supported by faith, and an interpretation of what little evidence does exist. I would just hope that it does not become a foregone conclusion for many that because other Pagan holidays and rituals existed first, and are similar, that the choice of early Christians to celebrate in ways which were familiar to them means that the substance of the religion is false.

No, these moments in "history" are not "well documented". Otherwise, there wouldn't be so much debate about them, even among Christians.

Actually, many of them are well documented, but the debate is mostly over the authenticity of any documents, the timing of their recording, the accuracy of events recounted, and the interpretation of those events. Other events are recorded as undisputed parts of history, but do not reveal specific evidence of proof for the Christian faith, even though they are intertwined in the account of the life of Jesus.

I recently watched a T.V. special about the Bible where it showed the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the walls and pillars of buildings in the Egyptian cities mentioned in the Bible. The story of Joseph who interpreted dreams for the Pharaoh was documented in these historical records just as it was re-counted in the Bible.

The prophets foretold of many events which came to pass, particularly in the life of Jesus. Actions and events of the Romans, the migrations of the israelites, and numerous other key stories have been recorded as part of factual history. The interpretation of these events, and what they mean in the large scheme of things is often debated. Some events can not be proven to have occurred, but much of the history in any culture is oral. I believe more conclusive evidence in support of Biblical stories exist than most people are aware of.

Here is a site that discusses the Archaeological discoveries which confirm the validity of Biblical accounts:
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn04/biblearchaeology.htm

Thanks for your response!

D.J. Eisenhart
_________________
Last Fearner

 

[Adept]

Whether you know it or not, believe it or not, or can prove it or not: God is the creator, and all things are His creation. Failure to appreciate this, or understand it because of "human intellect" which believes scientific misdirection, and questioning all the evil and misfortune of the world, does not change the Truth.

Thats an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, it has about as much substance as the theory of, say, Bigfoot, Nessie, alien abductions or the resurrection of Elvis.

Until we see some evidence to indicate otherwise, believing that god, as outlined in the bible, is real must be treated the same as any other fanciful theory.


Personally, Christmas to me is a time to buy gifts, recieve gifts, and spend time with family and friends. Also a very busy time at work!

 

[heretic888]

You might be right about the celebrations being "repackaged." There are many similarities, and probably the carry over of specific rituals modified for Christian purposes. Of course, this does not mean that the Christian events did not occur, nor that Jesus was the Christ. Those debates are mostly supported by faith, and an interpretation of what little evidence does exist. I would just hope that it does not become a foregone conclusion for many that because other Pagan holidays and rituals existed first, and are similar, that the choice of early Christians to celebrate in ways which were familiar to them means that the substance of the religion is false.

That depends on what you consider the "substance of the religion" to be.

However, as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction. The "Jesus Christ" of the Markan Gospel is a literary construct created from Old Testament midrash and popular Greek fiction.

Actually, many of them are well documented, but the debate is mostly over the authenticity of any documents, the timing of their recording, the accuracy of events recounted, and the interpretation of those events.

Contrary to what you have been told, there is no real "debate".

Most of the New Testament (including the Gospel of John) date to the second century and are almost entirely pseudipigraphica (meaning, they were not written by who claimed to have wrote them). The Gospels of Luke and Matthew are derivative of Mark, whom they copied word-for-word in the original Greek in some pericopes (an observation known as the Markan Priority Hypothesis). Luke, furthermore, is derivative of the Jewish historian Josephus and couldn't date before 95 CE.

This is similar to the "debate" about evolution in that it only occurs in fringe circles that have no influence in academia.

I recently watched a T.V. special about the Bible where it showed the Egyptian hieroglyphics on the walls and pillars of buildings in the Egyptian cities mentioned in the Bible. The story of Joseph who interpreted dreams for the Pharaoh was documented in these historical records just as it was re-counted in the Bible.

A curious occurrence, given that there is no documented evidence for any of the Old Testament stories prior to, say, 1000 BCE. Then again, "true believers" telling bold lies on public television is hardly a new thing.

The prophets foretold of many events which came to pass, particularly in the life of Jesus. Actions and events of the Romans, the migrations of the israelites, and numerous other key stories have been recorded as part of factual history.

Its easy to record "factual history" when you are writing after the fact. The Old Testament dates to around 800 to 700 BCE, with its narrative evincing both historical anachronisms (such as Abraham using domesticated camels about a millenium before they were domesticated) as well as sociopolitical agenda. I would recommend Sigel & Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed for an actual objective look at the dating of the Old Testament.

As for the "life of Jesus", the Markan author used Old Testament stories as his storyboard. The life in question never happened, it was allegory from beginning to end.

Here is a site that discusses the Archaeological discoveries which confirm the validity of Biblical accounts:
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn04/biblearchaeology.htm

I would again suggest the aforementioned book on Biblical archeology, unless you're only interested in apologetic pseudoscience.

 

[bluemtn]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-tkdgirl
-MT Moderator-

 

[terryl965]

The Jewish family said "We get out of bed late. We have a long, leisurely breakfast. Then we get dressed and go out. We wander down to our warehouse, look at all the empty shelves and sing 'What a Friend We Have in Jesus'."

Tellner I hope you was joking with this statement I kinda find this insulting to me:asian: and my heritage, you know we would get up early to go check out the warehouse early ever before breakfast

.

 

[tellner]

It's an old, old joke. And considering that I'm Jewish, well...

 

[terryl965]

It's an old, old joke. And considering that I'm Jewish, well...

Glad to hear it since I'am too. Great minds we have

 

[tellner]

I actually heard it from the Rabbi who oversaw my Bar Mitzvah. It's shades of Two Live Jews: As Kosher As They Wanna Be "Gentiles, don't tell these jokes. These jokes aren't as funny when Gentiles tell them."

Unfortunately, one of my favorites turned out not to be so funny. For many years my dad was the local mohel. I got him a t-shirt that said "Prepuce Comes First! I'm With the Mohel Majority." The unfunny part was what my mom said to me when he had the poor taste to wear it in public

 

[Ninjamom]

.......The Old Testament dates to around 800 to 700 BCE, with its narrative evincing both historical anachronisms (such as Abraham using domesticated camels about a millenium before they were domesticated) as well as sociopolitical agenda. I would recommend Sigel & Finkelstein's The Bible Unearthed for an actual objective look at the dating of the Old Testament.

A quick check of a source generally regarded as reliable and unbiased on this front (in this case The Encyclopaedia Britannica) sets the dates for domestication of camels at between 8,000 and 3,000 BC, meaning that camels were uniformly acknowledged to have been domesticated prior to the dates set for the Patriarchal (including Abrahamic) narratives in the Bible.

My point: It seems that both sides in this debate can succumb to the flaw of reading only those sources that support previously-held viewpoints.

Heretic, if such a short, simple "fact check" can show a bias in your sources, it might give you cause to question some of the other dates and allegations of your sources. In the meantime, while I deeply respect your right to hold whatever beliefs/views you choose, I would ask that, on this thread, all parties please continue with the original poster's intent and line of discussion.

 

[heretic888]

Heretic, if such a short, simple "fact check" can show a bias in your sources, it might give you cause to question some of the other dates and allegations of your sources.

First off, you seem to have some very confused ideas here. If a given source is factually inaccurate, that does not mean it is "biased". That just means it is factually inaccurate. There is no need to project a psychological motivation into a source when the evidence does not warrant it.

That being said, I would ask that you do a little more in-depth research yourself. Suggesting that humans could have domesticated camels as early as 8,000 BCE is really absurd. The earliest possible date, according to even conservative archaeologists, is around 3,000 BCE. More generally accepted dates are somewhere around 2,000 to 2,500 BCE.

However, this date still doesn't warrant the descriptions we find in the Old Testament. From Camels and dromedaries at Livius.Org:

The dromedary is easy to domesticate and the first evidence for tame dromedaries dates back to the late third millennium BCE. The domestication first happened on the Arabian peninsula, and it seems to have been connected to the exploitation of distant copper mines. However, it was only much later, in the tenth or ninth century BCE, that the dromedary became a really popular animal in the Near East.

From now on, long distance trade and desert nomadism became possible. The use of dromedaries in the second millennium BCE by nomadic tribes, as implied in the Biblical book Genesis, is almost certainly unhistorical and shows that Genesis was composed at a later age.​

However, this is something of a moot point as there are a number of anachronisms in both the Old and New Testament outside of the issue of camel domestication. Again, I would refer you to Sigel and Finkelstein's work.

In the meantime, while I deeply respect your right to hold whatever beliefs/views you choose, I would ask that, on this thread, all parties please continue with the original poster's intent and line of discussion.

The original poster's intent and line of discussion is what Christmas personally means to you. Outside of the reasons I have already cited, Christmas reminds me of the power of groupthink within human organizations.

 

[Last Fearner]

whatever beliefs/views you choose, I would ask that, on this thread, all parties please continue with the original poster's intent and line of discussion.

I was about to suggest the same thing! Thank you Ninjamom for bringing this to everyone's attention.

This thread should have remained about "what Christmas means to you," not whether or not you believe there is a God, or if Christ was a real person or the son of God. If Christmas means nothing religious to you, then say so, and leave it at that. It was not my intention to drive this thread from an inquiry about Christmas, to a debate about the Bible and Christianity. However, when this thread was recently revived, I read it for the first time, and noticed many people doing more than just saying what Christmas meant to them, and leaving it at that, but they were basically calling Christianity a sham, lies, and without foundation in facts.

I should have split off to a different thread in the first place in order to respond, but I will do so now. I hope that those who are interested in a polite and respectful discussion of this topic would join me there, rather than continuing to drag out replies here, making the offense worse than it is.

http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=761662#post761662

Last Fearner

 

[Carol]

That is correct, when I started it, I was curious to hear input from different folks...whether or not they observe the birth of Christ Jesus as a holy day or not as it is a time when many people tend to get together with family, friends, or even enjoy a bit of quiet time to themselves.