A few comments on the original post: • Jeremiah 10 refers to carving an idol, not a Christmas tree. • The Jeremiah 7 quote speaks of idolatrous practices many centuries before Christ's life on earth. I will admit that Catholicism (which is by no means all of Christianity) has unfortunately adopted the title "queen of heaven" for Mary — without a hint of biblical support for that name. • "Amen" means "so be it" and has nothing to do with pagan gods. • At "Easter" Christians are celebrating the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not some pagan holiday. • Christianity at its heart is simply faith in the Savior Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again. That liberating truth is what the New Testament declares as the essence of the Christian faith.
I agree, Jim. Whether the popular rituals surrounding the Christian holidays are pagan in origin or not, what matters is what is in one's heart. For me, I have some lingering pagan sensibilities and enjoy the Yule and Beltane traditions.
Despite the commercialization, the holidays brings together the families and also promotes caring and sharing. Pagan or not it does help bring people closer together and I think this is the most important.
Yeah, but corporation have taken the meaning of Christmas to mean a very different thing then to celebrate Christ birth.
Totally agree. My wife's family is atheist - yet the Yule tree, and lighting of its candles while singing "Tannenbaum" is an important, yearly ritual. The same goes for easter egg hunts on Easter, and all the rest. Personally, one of my problems with much of my atheist (and zen) confreres (of which I am, more or less, both) is that there tends to be a sterility to the view of life. I love ritual, I love atavistic pleasures. There is poetry in all of it, that is beautiful. (Probably another thread).
WHAT??? Paul was one of the first Christians...do you really know anything about christianity? How could they have had Christmas trees when technically Christmas had not happened? The baby Jesus had not even been born???
I'm sorry if I'm inappropriately speaking for Demosfen. I think he is referring to the fact that Paul was not one of the original apostles, and, possibly, that Paul's doctrines flew the Christian faith in a whole different direction from what it was previous to his assumption of leadership. Christmas trees - I think he might be referring to the practice of such trees as part of celebrations that preceded Christianity, that were appropriated by Christianity and incorporated into its wintertime celebration of Christ's birth.
I heard you...some valid points...I'm just not sure the OP knows exactly what he has gotten himself into.
When you read the whole Bible old and new testaments everything fits together and Paul's writing do not go any other directions, but this is a common area that a specific group tries to use on the ignorant (ignorant in the exact subject, so please don't think I am calling you ignorant) to confuse them. Now we have terms thrown around like pauline theology. What is that suppose to mean? But as far as the holidays, Christian celebrations were mixed with pagan holidays to make both happy. But like you said, it is where the heart is. We had a Christmas tree, but it represents something completely different to us and is absolutely not worshiped or regarded holy or anything. The tree can represent life, it also can represent where the wood comes from to make the cross which in turn reminds us of what Jesus did because of our sins. We can have Christmas any time of the year with or without a tree, with or without gifts, etc...
Debunked, I would have to disagree regarding Paul. From my reading of the early Church, there is definitely a striking difference between the earliest Christian community and its nature after Paul's camp won out. Here, this squares with some of the stuff I recall, anyway, from when I was looking closely at the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity
Curious to know where Paul varied from anything Jesus taught. The interesting thing about Paul was his knowledge of the Torah and Prophets.
Well, to begin, you did say: Which I take to mean that the term is merely a created term, a construction, used by a "specific group" "trying to use [same] on the ignorant." The fact that Pauline Christianity is a very real, quite historically rooted, term, means it isn't some new creation fabricated and utilized by a specific group - I am guessing, you mean, Muslims? I have known of the schism of opinion, pre- and post-Paul, since when I was a Christian, which goes back, I think as you know, about 30 years in this 46 year old life. There were camps within early Christianity, and Paul and his "camp" were but one; his was merely the ascendant camp, and the Church has largely relied on his views since. His texts became canonical, but this doesn't negate the existence of numerous texts extant, and extant at his time, that very clearly differ from Paul's account. Paul was a Roman, and used a Roman's administrative means to ensure his own ascendancy. The Bishops of Rome - the early papacy - themselves worked very hard to ensure only the Pauline view became canonical. The views of Paul differed from the views of the original apostles in many ways. Researching the Council of Jerusalem, and Antioch, shows the apparent discord between Paul and the Apostles. A look through his epistles reveals his view of largely Christ as the Destroyer, while the men who lived with him refer largely to him as the being filled with agape. A very complex issue, beyond the scope of this forum - and I don't have the inclination to spend the considerable time to go through it. I merely state here that the idea of Pauline Christianity is not a new fabrication, used by a "specific group" to dupe others. The view of Paul's theology, as opposed to pre-Pauline theology, has been in existence since at least 50 a.d.
Yes, the I never heard of "pauline theology" until the muslims on this board were using it. Never have any of them backed up their retoric, so I assumed it was just pure nonsense. 46? and you aren't dead yet? dang you are old...Did you meet Paul in person? -- Just kidding. Just had to throw that in there. The "camps" started when Paul was around and Paul himself corrected that. I think from what I know of history and the Bible, that people actually did not know simply because they did not have all of the books we have today. The Bible wasn't even given to the common man for years, but sure helped the printing press get its start. Once you read all of Paul's writing in light of what is called the Old Testament and the other books of the new testament you will find that Paul does not differ in his views. He took Christ's words with his knowledge of the Old Testament (can be replaced with Torah, Prophets, etc...), he gave a deeper insight and explanation. He in a sense- connected the dots. He was a Pharasee, one who studied the Torah. He prided himself with that fact. Jesus is called a Lion and a Lamb for a reason. He came as a lamb to be slaughtered and will come as a Lion as stated throughout the Bible. I guess I should have re-read your post before responding, since I am sure you have a wealth of information that goes beyond my learning so far. So, I stand corrected, Pauline Christianity isn't a new fabrication.
This discussion has gone far beyond my knowledge but it is interesting to read what you guys have to say. I strongly disagree with the OP's demosfen initial posts, but the thread progressed far beyond that and is good learning material
Most discussions with Northpoint are great for learning. (He is my free professor, just don't tell him...) If anyone here keeps things in balance it is North, he hates it when someone is unfair or is acting out of ignorance (as you can see with the above.) He is 99% kind in his posts (yes, he does get mad) but I find him to also be open for a challenge in his knowledge, but be prepared, I find myself talking without remembering where I know something from. Trolls beware, and ignorant racists beware, North will eat you for lunch.
Just saw this. Per the above, it was the Council of Jerusalem, 50 a.d., following on the confrontations over same at Antioch. There is some controversy as to whether the events as mentioned by Paul in his epistles are as those that took place as described. Paul's ascendancy, as well as his doctrine, meant his version of the events has largely won the day of majority Christian opinion.
The concept of sharing is actually very recent, it came from the Communist manifesto, and is not advocated in the Bible. Bible promotes private property, which is the opposite I disagree here. The most important is that pagan religion is banned in Jeremiah under threat of famines and national captivity. Just look what happened to nations that practiced pagan rituals throughout the history