Why Jehovah's Witnesses are WRONG about Christmas (page 2)

OUTLAW

Why Jehovah's Witnesses are WRONG about Christmas

Santa Died For Your Sins!!

I believe that their own LIE-ble implores people not to judge others for celebrating a holiday or for not celebrating it--and, since they proudly proclaim to abide by the whole book, they are bound to it.

And Christmas is probably the most inclusive holiday on the calendar. Xians celebrate the day their Jesus was born, which was reputed as December 25. Even if that thing was really born early October, December 25 is the day that is most widely accepted. And pagans can celebrate it, since 18 of their Gods were also born on December 25. Of note, the sun starts its northward movement on December 25 after sitting on the Cross of the Zodiac the previous three days.

And there are so many ways to enjoy Christmas. Whether you call it Christmas or Yuletide (its technically correct name), you can enjoy the lights in the area. Put some on your house, put some on your tree, put them wherever you see fit. If they are LEDs, they will provide minimal input on your electricity bill. You can go buying and exchanging gifts--I do not recommend going deep into debt for this, however. Party, enjoy yourself, or just sit quietly and relax. Even staunch atheists can do that, and they can see this as a day to enjoy and celebrate material prosperity.

The only major article of celebration I do not recommend anyone do, regardless of religious belief, is drink driving. Do that, and you are likely to face the weekend in a jail cell and lose your license. You will probably be paying a big fine and get a big hit on your auto insurance. If you hurt or kill someone because of your drink driving, the penalties are even worse--felony charges are possible plus the guilt trip. That is the fastest way to have a dreary Christmas instead of a merry one, and a crappy new year instead of a happy one. Just a Bah! Humbug! to drink driving, and enjoy everything else you see fit.

Saename

WTWizard - The only major article of celebration I do not recommend anyone do, regardless of religious belief, is drink driving.

But can I inject alcohol directly into my bloodstream?? Please, please, can I?? Can I???

Finkelstein

From an atheist's perspective, Christmas celebrations are just fun and enjoyable, a lot has to do with children's enjoyment as well. A time to socialize go out and enjoy yourself in out door activities. etc.

I do admit its overly commercialized though.

One thing to be observed when not engaged in rigid religions like the JWS is you can participate as much of secular holidays as you want.

anointed1

Wine was not the part of Passover celebration. Jesus included it, ever since wine became part of memorial celebration.

Hence you are right about your view about x'mas in contrast to JW view.

Luo bou to

the only purpose of condemning so many holidays I suggest is to isolate JW'S from society and feed their holier than thou egos typical cult controll tactic

Finkelstein

The anti Christendom ( False Religion) by the WTS. has been continually emphasized to circumvent how the JWS are more of a purer form of a righteous identifying sect of worshipers and therefore they are accordingly in appeasement to god, placing them in position for life ever lasting in paradise.

Truer Christians " The Truth"

Its a calculating self supporting from of propaganda to allure people to the organization and self validate themselves of that proposed purity.

aqwsed12345

Calculating Christmas

The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere; on the contrary, it claims that when it happened, both humans and angels celebrated (Luke 2:13-14,20). It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not forbid it either; rather, it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of the whole people, then heaven opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels praised God in multitude (Luke 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the wise men (Mt 2:10), who also prepared to meet the Messiah by bringing him gifts (Mt 2:11). Whoever understands why humans and angels rejoiced at that time, still has something to celebrate today.

Is it only permissible to celebrate holidays prescribed in the Bible? The Bible does not state such a basic principle. In addition to the annual holidays prescribed for the Jews in the law, they also had occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah).

• Jesus himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) and taught in the Temple during the holiday (John 10:22-3). He never opposed holidays that were not prescribed by the Mosaic law.

• According to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance in someone considering a particular day to be special for some reason compared to another. Therefore, on the one hand, we should not command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, we should not condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17).

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids the setting up of a tree, considering the Christmas tree as paganism. However, the biblical texts they usually refer to are about completely different things, not about the 17th-century German Christians' christmas tree or the birthday.

• Deut 16:21-22 forbids the mixing of Canaanite fertility festivals with Israelite worship; Canaanites, for example, held ritual orgies under lush green trees (see Jer 2:20, 3:6,13, etc.).

• In Jer 7:18, "gathering wood" was part of the preparation for the pagan festival of the queen of heaven, but the wood was burned to cook.

• In Jer 10:3, tree cutting is about preparing pagan wooden idols, but the tree was cut down, its branches cut off, the trunk carved into a figure, and worshiped as an embodiment of the deity.

It is a fact that Christmas and Easter are associated with a variety of folk customs that differ from country to country, but these customs have never enjoyed the official approval of the Catholic Church - at most they were tolerated, but generally they were intended to be pushed out by sacramentals like the blessing of food, the consecration of water, and others. These customs are treated as folk customs, not religious ceremonies. Where they are considered religious, Christian meanings are often read into them, and admittedly, not without some cleverness.

Priests do not call these "pagan symbols that Christians cannot practice." They are satisfied if they can explain Christian meanings behind the pagan-originated customs or, if that is not possible, recommend Christian customs, symbols, and sacramentals to satisfy the religious (or simply festive) needs of the people. This has always been the Catholics' tool for winning over the masses, knowing that the masses practice their religion not with their minds, but with their eyes, stomachs, gestures, voices, and so on.

The question is whether Christmas or the Easter Bunny is inherently pagan: because if so, Jehovah's Witnesses would indeed have to run out from the world. Neither Jews nor the first Christians went to the theater, read secular literature, or even went to a registrar when they wanted to marry. Similarly, harmless cultural customs have now become the Christmas tree, egg painting, and other mentioned customs: no one is aware of their pagan or manufactured Christian meanings. This does not make them Christian cultural elements - but I did not claim that. Of course, you can proclaim their pagan past as gospel at the doors.

It would only be an obvious un-Christianity (as they say "anti-Christianity") if the Catholics had incorporated these customs into at least its sacramentals.

These customs (egg painting, ham eating, or setting up a Christmas tree) are not pagan because they have completely lost that role and are celebrated in most of the world without any religious aspect, merely as cultural customs. We know that Paul willingly boarded a ship dedicated to Castor and Pollux, or that a Christian person in the Bible bore the names Fortunatus or Mercurius. But there is even more elaborate: Paul takes his analogy from the Mithraic cult when talking about shedding the old man and putting on the new man. And again: he approvingly quotes a verse ("in Him we live and move and exist") that originally addressed Zeus. He even calls a Cretan poet, Epimenides, a prophet.

We know that these names and motifs come from paganism, and if you were right, Christians should have thrown them away like hot iron. But they also knew what I am trying in vain to present to you: that Greek mythology had a manifestation that was no longer associated with religious reverence or idolatry, but still connected to the old on the level of names and words, as culture fades more slowly from people's lives than religion. They used the pagans' education in this sense, at least, and sometimes lived with their customs and phrases. Thus, they did not hesitate to call Jesus Savior, although Roman emperors and earlier pagan rulers used it as a decorative title. Similarly, the Kyrios, which was applied to Jesus in the first, most concise Christian creeds, was the emperor's title of honor. But Paul spoke of the victor's wreath, which was part of the pagan religious elements woven into the Olympic Games, or the winner's palm, which also symbolized eternity with pagan overtones. But you don't know this, otherwise you would almost burst trying to somehow explain these references away while, of course, loudly protesting against Christmas and birthdays.

The Christmas and Easter celebrations currently exist, even though they were initially aimed at overcoming pagan or Jewish opposition, they were placed where they are with Christian purposes and became what they are today. Those who want to derive these holidays purely from paganism commit violence against historical truth: namely, that the church did not simply adopt some pagan holidays, but used them as a springboard (apologetic bridge) for its own purposes. Similar to how Paul used the slogans of the Corinthian libertine party when he supplemented them in response to debates: "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial;" "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food - but the body is not for immorality." The church, in the same spirit, placed Christmas at the time of the solstice, knowing that instead of Baldr or Mithras, it was the physical birth of Christ that brought light into the night. The Christmas tree and other accessories were stolen from paganism, and as long as the glory was not attributed to people (living or dead saints) but to Christ, no mistake was made.

The tune that Jehovah's Witnesses sing against historical Christianity is weak, and false. Sectarianism seeks refuge in tunnel vision and both historical and religious ignorance, unable to refute the essence of historical Christianity (i.e., their theology), and instead picks at periodic, incidental circumstances that have become completely irrelevant by now. We know that this kind of grasping is typical of short-breathed, weak, and unfit sectarian parrots who, unable to respond to what the opponent says, search for a Watchtower slander program that can somehow be squeezed into the level of words, and when the opponent stops speaking, they run it - regardless of whether it refutes anything.

As for their accusation of following false cults, I can easily dismiss it by saying that it's not necessary to have intention of honoring God with a Christmas tree or consecrated willow - but I understand those peoples who brought the beauty and material value they found around them to God as an expression of their heartfelt devotion. Of course, none of these devotional elements were meant to be eternally valid. As these forms have become outdated today (e.g., offering food in churches is no longer customary, as it was in the first centuries), they can now only be considered cultural elements, and the ever-changing Christian consciousness is happy to look for more suitable alternatives. For example, financial support for churches is more common among historical denominations than decorating churches with flowers, or lay-written and performed Christian poetry or song, rather than blessings pronounced on objects.

There could be much more discussion on this topic, but since I did not learn to appreciate what points to Christ or was born of zeal for him in the lives of other denominations all at once, I do not want the JWs to embrace all of this at once either. They seem to feel good in the black-and-white dream world into which their denomination has plunged its members, so I would not be surprised if their response to this arguments was full of reproaches like, "You are wrong to cover your loved ones' graves with fir branches on All Saints' Day or light candles on them, because such things are pagan customs." I could only say, "Why am I wasting my breath?"

In my opinion, ordinary laypeople take this pagan meaning about as seriously as the other one that the Roman Catholics usually associates with them: the Easter egg symbolizes rebirth or resurrection. But Easter is no longer about customs; it's primarily about eating and drinking, with some characteristic dishes. Hardly anyone decorates eggs or recites a charm over a hare nowadays. As for Christians and food: there are some among them with weak consciences who can see some form of idolatry or its remnants even in the widespread Easter feast. But I will not tolerate anyone with a self-righteous elitist mentality, picking and choosing food, sticking their nose in where I am. Because I give thanks for the rabbit and the egg too, if they're on the table, and I don't believe that some dark magic has clung to them just because others were thanking Odin, Freya, or Loki for the same things a thousand and five hundred years ago.

There is indeed a God-given order for Easter, which is described in detail in the Old Testament. But I deny that this exact order must be maintained in the New Testament. Jesus wants his death and resurrection to be celebrated in the church not only during Easter. Therefore, the Church has a biblically justified right to continue celebrating Easter and fill it with the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. However, it is not an individual's duty to sanctify a feast, so they can adapt to the customs widespread among their people if they are not anti-Christian. And those who eat the usual Easter bites mostly do so for non-religious reasons, so they do not worship idols or practice fertility magic.

In my opinion, the "Christian self-awareness" is quite justified in seeking forms according to its own desires, expectations, and "dispositions," since we have not received any instructions for the observance of (Old Testament) feasts in the New Testament, let alone precisely defined frameworks.

It was not the Roman Catholic Church that started changing the feasts, but the Lord Himself. For example, in the apostolic church's customary celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), there was no Easter lamb as a cultic food, but we read about bread and wine. We do not read in the Bible about other feasts ordained by Jesus or about the observance of Old Testament feasts in the pagan-Christian part of the church. That is why the Church at all times has the freedom to dedicate feasts for its use (and interpretation), provided it does not believe it is fulfilling divine instructions. Even Sunday, among the ecclesiastical feasts, does not have Jesus' authority, although we find traces in the Bible that the disciples gathered on this day for the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) and to listen to the teachings.

Easter celebrations (and the bitter debate about their timing) existed in the church even before power and wealth tempted it. The Church did not consider the details of the feast to be of eternal validity or reasons for schism. It is worth reading about the case of Pope Victor, the churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus: it still serves as an example for the church today.

Jesus gave no command regarding Easter (Passover), because what He commanded was about the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). There can be no talk of fulfillment in the sense that one feast would fulfill the other. The old Passover, by the way, was not fulfilled by the the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), but by the sacrifice on the cross. You are surely familiar with Paul's words: "Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord."

The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) was not introduced as part of the Passover feast, otherwise they would have had to celebrate Passover every time they took the Eucharist , but we do not read about this in either Acts or the First Corinthians, which contain the most abundant information on this subject. Paul warned the Colossians not about the "matter" of the feasts, but against the efforts of those who wanted to enslave them by "warning" them about the feasts, so he said this in one breath as a warning against the intruders who were waving about food prohibitions. Behold, he calls the feasts themselves shadows, but if he were urging their observance, he certainly would not speak like this.

The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere. If it did, it would justify it. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to celebrate it or not, but those who want to make it mandatory or forbid it for others are being legalistic. It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not prohibit it either, and it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of all the people, and then the heavens opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels were glorifying God in great numbers (Lk 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the magi. The latter even prepared in advance for the encounter with the Messiah and brought gifts to the Son of God (Mt 2:11). Why should we today have less reason to rejoice in the Messiah's birth? Why shouldn't we celebrate it too?

According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Only the holidays commanded in the Bible can be celebrated."

Firstly, the Bible does not state such a basic principle; anyone can set such a rule for themselves, but if they expect it from others, they are being legalistic again. Secondly, the positive characters in the Bible had many other occasional and regular celebrations besides the prescribed annual ones, with God's blessing. As for Jesus, for example, he went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), walking in the Temple and teaching (Jn 10:22), and there is no trace in the Gospels that he opposed such a celebration. Thirdly, according to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance to someone considering a particular day different in some respect from another. Therefore, on the one hand, it is not allowed to command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, it is not allowed to condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17). Although it is not a sin not to celebrate Christ's birth, it is a sin to condemn others just because they do. Even if they commit some kind of sin in the process, which the Bible calls such, only the specific sins themselves should be condemned.

The word "pagan" (Latin paganus = rural, villager) itself is not in the Bible. The Hebrew goyim and Greek ethnoi, which are often translated as "pagans," simply mean "peoples" or "nations," as opposed to the chosen (Jewish) people, "the People." Secondly, the Bible only forbade "pagan" or simply non-Jewish beliefs and practices if they led to idolatry or immorality. The Bible does not forbid "everything that is not Jewish" because it is not anti-culture but anti-godlessness. Therefore, many things of "pagan origin" are now perfectly neutral, even though they developed in a "pagan" environment and were part of the pagan worldview.

For example, the Jews could keep the Babylonian names of the months. God only wanted to protect them from adopting the Babylonian god and star cult, which required much more than just using the names of the months. Similarly, the Germanic people who converted to Christianity could keep the old Germanic and Roman day names because they naturally assumed that after their conversion, they would no longer offer sacrifices to the Germanic spring goddess Freia on Fridays (Freitag); today's average people don't even think of Freia.

The same principle applies to many things from Babylonian-origin astronomy, Greek-origin geometry, or Roman-origin signet rings to modern Christmas accessories, which are now part of our culture. They still exist, and we use them, but the pagan ideas once associated with them have long been detached. Who is bothered today by the fact that in ancient times, here or there, some magical significance was attributed to an object, custom, or branch of science? What kind of effect could this have on those who do not know about it or, even if they do, do not believe in it?

According to the Bible, we were created into a universe where it is natural, even according to God, to consider certain days and years special (Genesis 1:14). At the end of creation, God rested on the seventh day and commanded the Jews to do the same. Moreover, He gave them a whole series of festivals (Leviticus 23:4), which all nurtured their relationship with God and one another, in the context of festive feasting and rejoicing (Deuteronomy 14:22-29, 2 Chronicles 30:21-23)!

The Bible also reports on occasional national celebrations. For example, when the Jews defeated their enemies, they ate and drank together as a sign of their shared joy, sent gifts to each other, and gave to the poor (Esther 9:19-22). When David recovered the Ark of the Covenant, he gave gifts to the entire nation (2 Samuel 6:17-19), and Solomon held a national celebration on the occasion of the temple's consecration (2 Chronicles 7:1-10).

However, the most common occasional celebration was the family celebration. Given the high child mortality rate at the time, it is understandable that they celebrated weaning (when they stopped breastfeeding, Genesis 21:8), birthdays (Job 1:4), and weddings (Judges 14:10, Matthew 22:2, John 2:1-10) with feasts. A feast was also held when guests arrived (Genesis 18:6-8, 19:3), when covenants and contracts were made (Genesis 26:28-31, 31:46-54), and during harvest (Exodus 23:16, Numbers 28:26), grape harvest (Judges 9:27), and sheep shearing (2 Samuel 13:23).

Finally, it is worth considering that God likens the great blessing reserved for all nations to a magnificent festive banquet (Isaiah 25:6), just as Christ does when he refers to his fellowship with his people upon his return (Matthew 26:29). Thus, regular and occasional celebrations have always been a natural part of life for God and His people.

Rattigan350

Why are you promoting Christmas?

It may be fun, but as free folk, we don't follow that.

NotFormer

Rattigan, you don't follow it because you're not free.

Why Jehovah's Witnesses are WRONG about Christmas

Share this