Is Christmas Biblical or Sacred Church Tradition?

[Chuckt]

So, you're saying Sacred Tradition should only be taught to those like you who "understand", not to the "masses" who among them might be some who want to know who was this Jesus character and why is everyone making a fuss over him.

Genius

Does Jesus have a sleigh and reindeer that fly?
In some ways, incorporating Santa in telling people about a Jesus character is a lie.
Some things about Santa are similar to God but the rest are untrue.

Tradition was broken:
Jesus healed people on the Sabbath.
Jesus' followers ate with unwashed hands on the Sabbath.

In some ways tradition is only a shadow of the truth. You are worshipping the shadow instead of the image. The shadow is not caused by God but by man.

 

[Chuckt]

You only quote a translation that fits your agenda....

I apologize for making mistakes.
You may accuse me before God if you so desire but you may find out that people make mistakes.

 

[Chuckt]

What Are Some Arguments against Apostolic Tradition?

As has often been pointed out, “Never has the Roman Catholic Church given a complete and exhaustive list of the contents of extrabiblical apostolic tradition. It has not dared to do so because this oral tradition is such a nebulous entity.”16

http://www.equip.org/article/what-are-some-arguments-against-apostolic-tradition/

 

[cheezgrits]

Does Jesus have a sleigh and reindeer that fly?.

No, but he has a dinosaur. I've seen it on the internet. So it must be true, just like all the cut and paste you do from the internet.

 

[PsyOps]

It was opened up to the masses with the incorporation of Santa Claus.
In that way, people who don't necessarily believe in God participate.

And I think that's a good thing... non-believers participating in a Christian holiday.

 

[cheezgrits]

And I think that's a good thing... non-believers participating in a Christian holiday.

Ummm, yeah...about that...

 

[Chuckt]

Ummm, yeah...about that... View attachment 111005

Cheezegrits,

If you honestly have an original idea like everyone else has, look it up on the Internet to see if anyone thought of it before. It is most likely that other people have thought of it before so therefore you can't own the idea ever. Right?

There are a lot of problems with the patent office as well. I'm told that other's ideas can resemble other people's patents because it is only another person's implementation of the same idea that you can't infringe on even though that doesn't make sense to me.

The picture basically says it was a pagan idea for gift giving and gift giving can be found in the Bible way before you can claim it for paganism. I would like documentation for the claims in the photo.

Chuck

 

[Chuckt]

No, you quoted a translation that suited your needs. Since you were at biblehub surely you saw all the other translations that used the word "spoke" or "speak", and you deliberately avoided those and chose to use the one and only translation that used the words teach instead with the intent to deceive. It doesn't really matter because the meaning is the same, and it means Sacred Tradition.



Teaching the Word of God IS Tradition, and that's done in various ways aside from relying on writing alone. That's the point I've been trying to make to both you and b23 for weeks now. And yes, even Hebrews 13:7 amongst others says as much. How do you suppose the early Church propagated the Gospel before anything was written down? BY ORALLY SPEAKING IT TO OTHERS. To deny Sacred Tradition is to deny the early church and ultimately the bible as well.

Jerome refused to translate the Apocrypha. His refusal to translate the Apocrypha is tradition, so until about 1545 or fifteen hundred and forty five years, we didn't have the Apocrypha. In other words, tradition says we didn't have the Apocrypha for 1545 years and tradition only says we had the apocrypha for 470 years. The tradition for not having the apocrypha is greater than the tradition for having it but yet you don't follow the greater tradition or you would have to say that the Catholic church made a tradition mistake for not having the apocrypha for all those years and not translating tradition for the masses all of those years.

 

[PsyOps]

Ummm, yeah...about that... View attachment 111005

Come on... this is all that honest.

Gift giving was born out of the Magi giving gifts to baby Jesus

There are a lot of stories and legends as to how the Christmas tree came. Some claim they are pagan in origin and some claim there Christian roots. The stories are so old that there is no way of knowing what the origin of the Christmas tree is. Lights/candles on the tree were supposed to represent the light of Christ.

The wreath was originally a symbol of victory, later adapted by Christians as a symbol of victory over death. There is no pagan origin to it.

The custom of the stockings is not pagan in origin. Although the story is of legend and can't be proven, St. Nicholas was a real person, a Christian. But the tradition of the stocking came from St. Nicholas giving gold to a poor man that couldn't afford to get his daughters married. St. Nicholas put the gold in the girls' stockings that were hanging over the fireplace to dry.

Since Christmas and the traditions/symbols we use to celebrate are so old, it's a matter of what you choose to believe to their origins: Pagan or Christian. To me, it really doesn't matter... At it's core, the holiday celebrates the birth of our Savior; and this is at the core of how Christians celebrate it.

 

[Radiant1]

Jerome refused to translate the Apocrypha. His refusal to translate the Apocrypha is tradition, so until about 1545 or fifteen hundred and forty five years, we didn't have the Apocrypha. In other words, tradition says we didn't have the Apocrypha for 1545 years and tradition only says we had the apocrypha for 470 years. The tradition for not having the apocrypha is greater than the tradition for having it but yet you don't follow the greater tradition or you would have to say that the Catholic church made a tradition mistake for not having the apocrypha for all those years and not translating tradition for the masses all of those years.

Another straw man. The Council of Trent REAFFIRMED the OT canon in 1546 and that only because Protestantism arose and removed some books. Both OT and NT canons were FORMALLY established at the Council of Rome in 382 (this council is an example of Sacred Tradition at work) and subsequently REAFFIRMED at least four times thereafter.

It's well established that Jesus and the early church used the Greek Septuagint which contained those OT books that you call Apocrypha, which is why the Church affirmed them, but yet you dispute them. The NT, which you do not dispute, even quotes from them. The NT that you use is a result of Sacred Tradition as nowhere in scripture does it say what is to be considered NT canon and the books found therein were used by the early church and also formally proclaimed at that council in Rome. So with that in mind, you are dependent on something (that thing being Sacred Tradition) outside of the Bible, which nullifies your Bible alone doctrine. How ironic can it get?

Although I'm sure you will keep setting up straw men to stab, you can't now say that you didn't know. And the more you persecute the Apostolic Church the more you give me and others an opportunity to present the truth of what the Church actually does teach and why. As time goes on I can no longer forgive you for what I perceive to be your ignorance but rather accuse you of willful deceit out of some sordid desire you have. Shall I say, keep up the good work, chuckt?

My plea to Protestants such as yourself is this -- if you truly believe everyone is free to interpret scripture for themselves, then by all means sit down, shut up, and let us do just that. In addition, base your faith in the person of Jesus Christ and not anti-Catholicism or anti-anything for that matter. Truly, your unending desire to deride and persecute the Apostolic Church even after being corrected about what is believed and/or taught does not come from God no more than Saul's persecution did.

 

[Radiant1]

To me, it really doesn't matter... At it's core, the holiday celebrates the birth of our Savior; and this is at the core of how Christians celebrate it.

Exactly my thought. So what if it's pagan in origin? If it doesn't cross Christian principles, then what's the problem? Pagans worship the coming of the sun, the light of the Earth and prolongation of days saving them from darkness. Christians celebrate the Son of God, the Light of the World who saves us from spiritual darkness. Different understandings of, more or less, the same Principle with the same celebration from whom the majority experience joy. :shrug:







And with that having been said, I'm going to take a break from this forum so that I might better experience that joy, as constantly having to defend my faith against ignorance and/or willful deceit brings me no joy whatsoever. I only do so out of a proper sense of Truth and a duty to defend it.

May you all have a most blessed Christmas season and experience that joy that it brings to its fullest. A Savior has been born, rejoice! \o/

 

[onel0126]

Giving an inch in anyway is dangerous for your average Protestant. Any concession to the Catholic Church is like a pebble falling off of a mountain. Their protesting starts to erode one pebble at a time and they are very cognizant of this. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty--a point proven by Chuck's use of the one and only commentary earlier this week to prove his point.

 

[cheezgrits]

Cheezegrits,

If you honestly have an original idea like everyone else has, look it up on the Internet to see if anyone thought of it before. It is most likely that other people have thought of it before so therefore you can't own the idea ever. Right?

There are a lot of problems with the patent office as well. I'm told that other's ideas can resemble other people's patents because it is only another person's implementation of the same idea that you can't infringe on even though that doesn't make sense to me.

The picture basically says it was a pagan idea for gift giving and gift giving can be found in the Bible way before you can claim it for paganism. I would like documentation for the claims in the photo.

Chuck

You are lecturing ME on ORIGINAL ideas????????????????????????????????????????????

See, that's funny right there.

Also, the pagan traditions were around a LOOOOOOONG time before your arab tribe celebrated the birth of some child. Please, use some common sense.

When you start providing links to all the "articles" you've written, answering everyone's questions and quit withe the cut and paste bible interpretations, maybe, just maybe, I'll give you the consideration of answering you.

Merry Christmas!! lol

 

[cheezgrits]

Come on... this is all that honest.

Gift giving was born out of the Magi giving gifts to baby Jesus

There are a lot of stories and legends as to how the Christmas tree came. Some claim they are pagan in origin and some claim there Christian roots. The stories are so old that there is no way of knowing what the origin of the Christmas tree is. Lights/candles on the tree were supposed to represent the light of Christ.

The wreath was originally a symbol of victory, later adapted by Christians as a symbol of victory over death. There is no pagan origin to it.

The custom of the stockings is not pagan in origin. Although the story is of legend and can't be proven, St. Nicholas was a real person, a Christian. But the tradition of the stocking came from St. Nicholas giving gold to a poor man that couldn't afford to get his daughters married. St. Nicholas put the gold in the girls' stockings that were hanging over the fireplace to dry.

Since Christmas and the traditions/symbols we use to celebrate are so old, it's a matter of what you choose to believe to their origins: Pagan or Christian. To me, it really doesn't matter... At it's core, the holiday celebrates the birth of our Savior; and this is at the core of how Christians celebrate it.

Humor....do you understand it?

 

[PsyOps]

Humor....do you understand it?

You know... people that do this crap... post something that comes across in a serious vein, it gets challenged, then you spew this sort of inanity for lack of a cogent response.

So, no I don't understand this sort of humor, on the internet, where I do not have the clairvoyance of seeing your facial expressions, and since it wasn't accompanied with any sort of laughing smilie, or, LOL or whatever.

 

[Chuckt]

You are lecturing ME on ORIGINAL ideas????????????????????????????????????????????

See, that's funny right there.

Also, the pagan traditions were around a LOOOOOOONG time before your arab tribe celebrated the birth of some child. Please, use some common sense.

When you start providing links to all the "articles" you've written, answering everyone's questions and quit withe the cut and paste bible interpretations, maybe, just maybe, I'll give you the consideration of answering you.

Merry Christmas!! lol

Yeah? What books did they write?

 

[cheezgrits]

You know... people that do this crap... post something that comes across in a serious vein, it gets challenged, then you spew this sort of inanity for lack of a cogent response.

So, no I don't understand this sort of humor, on the internet, where I do not have the clairvoyance of seeing your facial expressions, and since it wasn't accompanied with any sort of laughing smilie, or, LOL or whatever.

Wow, I certainly hope you get your underwear pulled out of your ass crack intime for the holidays. Lighten up. LOL,

 

[cheezgrits]

Yeah? What books did they write?

No more or no less than the characters in your nativity story. The bible wasn't "written" as a book until long after the facts.

 

[Chuckt]

Giving an inch in anyway is dangerous for your average Protestant. Any concession to the Catholic Church is like a pebble falling off of a mountain. Their protesting starts to erode one pebble at a time and they are very cognizant of this. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty--a point proven by Chuck's use of the one and only commentary earlier this week to prove his point.

And Catholics don't make any mistakes because they let the Pope and the priests do the heavy thinking for them? Or is it because they make concessions to Protestants that they need organizations like Catholic Answers? Because they don't have the answers or because they make mistakes? The reason why I look everything up is because people make mistakes, people don't know how to do the math, people lie, people are lazy and don't do their homework, people are misinformed. Tell Catholics to just listen and not to think because they might make a mistake and what you have is a self fulfilling prophecy. They believe everything they're told, they don't make a mistake and when the priest makes a mistake, they believe it, they don't check things out and they get the priest's errors. So if the priest doesn't know then how will the Catholic know? Better not to think because they don't want to be like the Protestant hypocrite, right? Jesus came for the sick and a lot of people don't want to become Christian because they don't want to be a hypocrite. So the answer is not to go to the spiritual doctor because they'll be a hypocrite so they should stay home and stay spiritually sick. That's your answer. I get it.

Where no oxen are, the crib is clean: but much increase is by the strength of the ox.
http://biblehub.com/proverbs/14-4.htm

Everyone is afraid of new people coming into ministry because they might make mistakes but the Bible says where no oxen are, the crib is clean. Don't let your people get involved, Onel0126 because they might make mistakes and if they think for themselves, they might learn where the Catholic church has made mistakes just like I learn from my mistakes and other's mistakes.

I bought a new book: "Roman Catholic Tradition / Claims and Contradictions" by William Webster. I was just thinking about the argument that we should go by Roman Catholic Tradition. Which? The Catholic Tradition that didn't give the people the Bible for 1545 years or the 470 years that they did? The Catholic Tradition that the people didn't have the Apocrapha for 1545 years or the 470 years that they did?

I happen to be happier being a Christian than being a Catholic after talking to you and your Catholic friends because all of the posts I am doing makes me all the more sure that you're wrong and we're right because I'm allowed to make mistakes, I'm allowed to check things out and use my brain and I've found the Catholic faith not only a disaster in theology but you're all misled.

"Because, as the apostle Peter informs us in his second letter, the Bible is more reliable than that which he had seen with his eyes and heard with his ears because it was written by men impelled by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-21). It would seem obvious that if the Bible is more reliable than what Peter himself had seen and heard, it is also more reliable than any tradition which contradicts it."-Answers to My Catholic Friends by Thomas F. Heinz.

2 Peter 1:16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Bird Dog]

Chuckie,
Your bigotry, hate and narcissism will consume you one day......