Preparing for Christmas

It is only one week before Christmas. Different people are preparing  differently for this holy day. What makes this day so holy in the Christian calender is that this day reminds us of the birth and life of our Lord Jesus Christ - Matthew 2.

I read on Reasonable Faith website this statement which i loved, and i want to leave you with it:

"Wise Men Still Seek for Him"

 

The Meaning and 0rigin of CHRISTMAS!

Update: - Don't forget to check my book. -

Two thousand years ago, the founder of Christianity was born. He was called Jesus and he became known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus-Christ. The events surrounding His birth is told only twice in Bible. First in the Gospel of Mathew 1-2 and the second one, in the Gospel of Luke 1-2. However the exact day of his birth wasn't recorded, leaving hence, a room for speculation about the time of his birth. Each December 25th, millions and Billions of people celebrate the birth of the savior God has sent to humanity. That day is remembered as Christmas. However, in certain circle, some folks just get angry and obnoxious about this day. In one of the many case against Christmas I have heard and read, the religious authors shew their disdain about Dec. 25 because they see in it a pagan feast. However it is usually forgotten that a non pagan origin for Christmas is equally an historical facts.

Greg Peters, an assistant professor at Biola University, an expert in early church history, Peters told ... that there are at least two theories about the way that Dec. 25 was decided on as the observation date of Christ’s birth. “One is that Dec. 25 was this pagan feast. There is also a theory that Dec. 25 was picked based on some early Christian sources that say that Jesus’ death would have been on March 25, based on the year and when the Passover happened.” Peters explains that according to ancient rabbinic practice, one’s death date was one’s birth date. In case of Jesus, it was March 25. Also in rabbinic tradition, birth is the same as conception. Therefore, if Jesus was “conceived” on March 25th, you add nine months and get Dec. 25. “Some scholars believe this and say you don’t have to see Christmas just as a Pagan feast day,” says Peters.

“It’s also possible to read early Christian authors and see that early Christians appropriated pagan holidays for themselves. The fact that Dec. 25 was a pagan holiday and they could usurp a pagan holiday- I’m sure it wasn’t far from their minds either.” 

 What is Professor Greg Peter saying? He said essentially two things. 1) people can argue for either a pagan origin to Christmas or argue for a theological/phylosophical origin for Christmas. 2) he also said that in the case it would fall under a pagan origin, we shouldn't look insulted because Christians seemed to have appropriate pagan holidays for themselves and hence redefining the meaning of those events while stripping pagans of their celebration because they became Christianized. Lets start with the first one.

0rigin of Christmas: Christian source

From Wikipedia, I read this info which lend support to what professor Greg Peter said:

For centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born. John Chrysostom preached a sermon in Antioch c. 386 which established the date of Christmas as December 25 on the Julian calendar since the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:26) had been announced during the sixth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy with John the Baptist (Luke 1:10-13) as dated from the duties Zacharias performed on the Day of Atonement during the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar Ethanim or Tishri (Lev. 16:29, 1 Kings 8:2) which falls in September–October.

The argument above is rather simple. If you remember in the Lukan account (Luke 1:26,27,31-KJV), it is said that "And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary ... And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." When the bible says 'and in the sixth month' it is clear that it means that something else has preceded those sixth month. The what preceded it are found in earlier verses in the same chapter 1 of Luke. The verse 24 give us the meaning: 'And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months,'. What does it mean 'after those days'? Earlier verses tells us what those days were. It was the days that preceded Elisabeth conception. Before her miracle few days earlier, her husband - a priest named Zacharias- was visited by the angel that visited Mary at the Annunciation day 6 months later. Those days were days when priest went to the temple as offered burned incense 'according to the custom of the priest's office,' (Verse 9). Those days when priests did those offering were known as the month of TISHREI - the seven month on the Jewish calender (Leviticus 16:29 and 1 King 8:2). The seven month in the Jewish calender was the beginning of the period of autumn which means during September or 0ctober in our modern non-Jewish calender.

Now this is very interesting because it puts the start of Elisabeth pregnancy either in September or 0ctober. Elisabeth was Mary cousin (verse 36) and she was without a child up until her old days. After an angel visited her husband, she conceived and probably for some cultural reasons she hid herself for 5 months before she broke the news to people. 'And in the sixth month' the same angel came back to Israel but this time not to Elisabeth family but to Mary. The second coming of the angel is now known as the Annunciation. So if you add 6 months to 'those days' when Elizabeth pregnancy begun (September-0ctober) you'll end up in either March or April in our modern calender. Which might make Marry to have started her pregnancy of Jesus upon the Angel annunciation of the coming of the King in either March or April. 

This lead to the inevitable conclusion that Jesus' birth nine months later - assuming that the Virgin Mary had a normal pregnancy of 9 months - will fall between December or January. December if Jesus' conception was in March. And January if Jesus' conception was in April. Hence the logic of early Christians such as St. Chrysostome to speak of Jesus' birth in December as early as the 4th Century. By the way, Easter Christianity such as 'Ethiopia, Russia and Ukraine celebrate Christmas, both as a Christian feast and as a public holiday, in January'.

0rigin of Christmas: Pagan source

If some see clearly a christian and biblical reason to approximate Jesus Christ birth around December through calculatuions based on Zacharias' temple services, their enthusiasms are not shared by all. As one source puts it: "In the early 18th century, scholars began proposing alternative explanations."

 Isaac Newton wargued that the date of Christmas was selected to correspond with the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma and celebrated on December 25. In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a "paganization" that debased the true church. 

I have few things to say about this. First, What the detractors usually forgets is that the law of logic, as would say Dr. Ravi Zacharias, demands of us not to assume that because two entities have two things or many things in common means that that they are the same entities. That would make a mistake in logic. If my neighbor John has ears and my dog BUBA has ears, does it follow that John is a dog? 0fcourse not. Having two things in common doesn't make them the same thing.  

Second, Dies Natalis Solis Invicti means "the birthday of the unconquered sun". Which certainly might have appeared attractive to Christians who had a strong bend in Evangelism as these ancient testimonials suggests: "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born", Cyprian wrote. John Chrysostom also commented on the connection: "They call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .?" Their reaction looks to me normal. They saw through the coincidence an opportunity to present Christ as the reality in contrast to Pagan myths and legends. St. Paul the apostle acted similarly when he visited Athens in ancient Greece, "while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. ... Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." (Acts 17: 16, 22, 23).

What Paul did at the Areopagus debate meeting in Athens was just brilliant, just like Cyprian and Chrysostom few centuries after him. St. Paul saw intense idolatry and he used one of those altar used in the Athenians idolatry to attract their attentions to the only true God and away from their superstition and false gods. Did Paul compromised with paganism? 0fcourse not. St. Paul saw a fortunate providence in the Athenians idolatry to combat their false belief by substituting them with that which was true. This is not compromising with paganism. This is strategic evangelism. The kind that I like. As for me, I don't really think it matters if the calculations are correct nor that the celebration bare some resemblance of day with pagan celebration. I rather share this view:

"While they were aware that pagans called this day the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus, this did not concern them and it did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas," according to modern scholar S.E. Hijmans. Today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on December 25 is not considered to be an important issue among mainstream Christian denominations; rather, celebrating the coming of God into the world in the form of man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to be the primary meaning of Christmas.

Conclusion

It is been some time since i had this document written by an expert in the Jesus studies - NT Wright. It was originally published in Gospel in Paul: Studies on Corinthians, Galatians and Romans for Richard N. Longenecker, eds. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson, 1994, pp. 222–239. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 108. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Reproduced by permission of the author. Simply put the paper was entitled: GOSPEL AND THEOLOGY IN GALATIANS.

In the paper, the author addressed the fact that even the word 'Gospel' - εὐαγγέλιον in Greek Evangelion- has two sources: “The two backgrounds regularly proposed for Paul’s use of Gospel – Evangelion- are, predictably, the Hebrew scriptures on the one hand and pagan usage on the other. The line between the two tends to follow the old divide between those who suppose Paul to be basically a Jewish thinker and those who see him as having borrowed his fundamental ideas from Hellenism."

So let's assume that even the word 'Gospel', evangelion - εὐαγγέλιον had a pagan source or origin. Does it mean that we should stop using it and assume that Christianity has been compromised from the start? I think not. Words have meaning and it is in the hand of the speaker to infuse them with meaning or even to redefine them: “In the Greek world the word Gospel, ‘evangelion’, is a technical term for “news of victory”. More specifically, it refers to the announcement of the birth or accession of an emperor. Not least at the time of Augustus, who became the first Roman emperor following a long period of civil war, the coming of a new ruler meant the promise of peace, a new start for the world. The birthday of the god [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings (εὐαγγέλιον) that have come to men through him. . .”

I still remember a time when as a kid i used to sing song where the word 'gay' was used in songs because at that time it simply meant 'happy'. Today, our lexicon has changed. We no longer use the word 'gay' with the same ease as before because the term, the word has changed its meaning. Now to be 'gay' doesn't mean to be 'happy', it rather means to have a 'homosexual affinity'. You change the word, you change the world - said Dr. Ravi Zacharias. As you look closely at the meaning of the word 'Gospel' either from the Hebrew Bible prophecy of Isaiah 40 or the pagan source as quoted above - we should be intellectually alerted and spiritually astute in order to recognize an opportunity to use the cultural language for the sake of our cause. For our cause is Christ. Always, Christ and His Kingdom.

NT Wright said that, ‘The trouble with history-of-religions study is that it regularly fails to see that what matters is not so much where an idea has come from as where it is going to. To announce that YHWH is king is to announce that Caesar is not. The death of one king means the accession of another; the acclamation of a would-be king spells a dire threat for the present one.'

In the same length, the proclamation of Jesus as being the true "Unconquered Sun" is to say that all other pretender to that divine position are 'not Unconquered'. This was the genius of the first Christians and they have won. Jesus is celebrated every year and all other pagan divinity who once shared that day have now faded in oblivion. But Jesus is now and forever more remembered as the TRUTH that all those superstitions only tried to point toward.

 Dethroning principalities and powers was the purpose. Here is how N.T Wright puts it:

"The Isaianic hope (Is40) was always conceived as a challenge to paganism at every level; … in declaring that Israel’s hope is fulfilled in her Messiah, ipso facto declares also that the pagan world is confronted with a new ruler." "[The] ‘gospel’ itself decisively confronted and overthrew the pagan powers that had dominated (Gal2.1-5)” "I believe in the essentially apocalyptic nature of Paul’s covenantal theology, and vice versa [when] rightly understood, [it] is not about the destruction of everything that happened before Jesus and the ushering in of a totally new world. It is about the new creation breaking into the old.’

The dethroning of paganism have happened by adapting their symbols like: statutes (Samson the biblical  strong man instead of Hercules the strong mythical demi-god), terminologies (Gospel found in Jesus and not in Augustus) and days of celebration (historic birth of Jesus instead of mythical birth of legendary gods). It was and it is still about the reality vs the fictitious, the unreal, the superstitious or the false. St. Paul in the Bible says this:

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. (1 Corinthians 9: 19-23 - The Bible)

As we remember the birth and the meaning of his advent, coming to earth- let us rejoice as the angels did when the Son was given, when the Child was born.

MERRY CHRISTMAS IN JESUS' NAME.

Is Christmas Celebration Bad for Christians? part 3

Hello everyone,

Thanks Maurice for the two feed-backs by our two friends. Since they seem to have a beef with what was posted - somehow - I'll be delighted to interact with them for as long as they are willing to continue this
conversation.

This is why, i hate to give generalized observation, people have too much leeway to accuse me of almost anything they want. But if i decide to go back in my point to point answer, which i decided not to do during this December Holiday, people tend to get a little more upset at me. So what should I do?

So i decided to keep the Christmas mood and still keep avoiding to be adversarial in my responses even though i was already coined 'defensive'.

So I'll start with the anti-Christmas friend then I'll follow suit with our historian pro Christmas lady.

@ anti-Christmas friend

"Would you please wish him/her a Merry Sweet Christmas from me?"

Thank you! Merry Christmas to you too! ;)

"Maurice I think this person isn`t objective enough,"

Well, i re-read my post and i haven't seen where i failed on "enough objectivity". So maybe you could be kind enough to pin point for me that!? And i'd also love to hear how you define objectivity and then how you justify that definition. I guess then we can start talking about that post lacking of enough objectivity.

"... instead of trying to understand what the author said, he/she`s going on the defensive, assuming that the author is a non-Christian resisting to the Gospel."

With respect to the first part of this quote, i should mention that because someone rejects a view or defends an alternative concept does not necessarily mean that that person does not understand what he is rejecting. I very well understand what i reject. I HAVE TO understand it before i give my sentence. Because we are not acquainted (yet), i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant well and that you were not trying to use a hand-waving argument.

With respect to the second part of the quote above, i duly recognize that it is dangerous indeed to make assumption about what someone else motivation is. That is why i tried not to make this grievous error by categorizing those who attack Christmas in three categories: Secularists, Sectarians, and Christians. This can
be seen in this quote from my previous post:

"Now the non-christian resisting to the gospel will use the latter one as a launch pin of their argument. However the sectarians within Christianity or the Christians who are over-sensitive to the concept of purity will use the former one to launch their criticism against the rest of Christendom by making a case for the necessity to return to absolute holiness and purity for the sake of our spiritual safety."

So i deny any charge that my prejudice pushed me to assumed that the author was a non-Christian. I know better than to make this elementary mistake.

"But I understand him/her perfectly, he/she doesn`t want Christmas to be taken away from him/her... "Christmas is such a beautiful feast, let`s not listen to what people are saying, let`s keep celebrating our biggest feast.""

I am afraid that you DO NOT understand me PERFECTLY not even PARTLY for that matter. I am not defending the value of Christmas because it is a beautiful feast or the biggest feast. My reason can be found in what I've already posted!

"Sincerely, and let him/her know that no one is ever take away "his/her" Christmas , no one can do that !!!"

This is one true statement and i guess also one of the few that I agree with you.

@ Pro Christmas historian lady

This deserve to be posted wholly!

"I would note, however, that when writing an argument, it is best not to cite Wikipedia as someone above did. The server can be tampered with by non-scholarly sources." I asked if she was referring to me and then she responded: "Maurice, I was thinking about the guy before--not you who used wiki. You were confirming a definition and they were whomever it was) was discussing events and historical things (hence why the historian in me panged to see it used as a source)."

This strikes me as an important point as well as a very bizarre one. The important point is that to bolster an argument one should look for stronger sources and it is known that Wikipedia is not one. Good point. But at the same time, i don't see how this is relevant to what i wrote. I did not edify any of my arguments from Wikipedia. The only time i made mention of Wikipedia was not even in an attempt to make an argument from its content.

Here is what is found in my post at the second quote:

Here was what the anti-Christmas friend sent:
"So why do we celebrate Christ's birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th? The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas" And here is what I answered:

"Let us even grant him that, despite the possible options laid at Wikipedia, let's just stick with that."

Does this sound to anyone as if i was using Wikipedia contents in making my argument? To the way i read it, and I'm sure other could reach the same reading conclusion as mine, is that, even if there may be other POSSIBLE options in explaining the Christmas origins as the ones collected in Wikipedia, i am willing for the sake of argument to ignore them all and stick with the one presented by the opposing view.

Therefore, i find all the comment directed to me as being for the least weird, but .. hey, it's Christmas season, people can at time react or be weird. And as for the subsequent letter sent to Maurice, well, let say we are moving away of the Christmas topic to the guy issues with Catholicism. I have found some point in his post that i would love to challenge him on, but I'll wait that this Christmas issue get out of the way, then if he still wants to discuss his views on Catholicism, I'll be glad to stand up to him as his challenger!

And as for this: "You don`t believe in the Assumption of Marie because it lacks evidence? That`s right, but how about December 25th? Is there any evidence in the Bible that I'm not aware of?"

I guess we have already made that point clear that even though the birth of Christ is a biblical fact, the date chosen to celebrate that is arbitrary (not to be confused with random). No one is saying that the bible says that this is indeed THE date of Christ birth. So it is unnecessary to request evidence where no one made the claim that there is one.

For the rest, i'll stay tuned to the evolution of this multilateral exchange.

May God bless you all in Jesus name and May you all have a EARLY MERRYCHRISTMAS!!!!

Is Christmas Celebration Bad for Christians? part 2

CHRISTMAS QUESTION:

Since Maurice has gone almost by doing a point by point refutation, i see no  need to venture in the avenue.

So i propose myself not to bother you by reiterating what was already said. However i do have some personal observation to make and i'll do that in a broad way.

The comment that was posted earlier, can only be used legitimately by someone who is trying to either show that Christianity as we know it, is not a true reflection of its original expression or that Christianity is not unique.

Now the non-christian resisting the gospel will use the latter one as a launch base for their arguments. However the sectarians within Christianity or the Christians who are over-sensitive to the concept of purity will use the former one to launch their criticism against the rest of Christendom by making a case for the necessity to return to absolute holiness and purity for the sake of our spiritual safety.

Now, i personally understand both side and I'm even willing to grant them some point here and there, however my disagreement with them will be that they do not separate what is the essence of Christianity and what are the form of expression christian can navigate within.

For the sake of making this brief, let me just take some stuffs from what was sent in that post and use it as a template.

1. "No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on ..."

Maybe he is right, assuming that God and the angels are clueless too. But i suspect he meant no one among the modern earthly livings. And I'm not even willing to contest that.

2. "So why do we celebrate Christ's birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th? The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas"


Let us even grant him that, despite the possible options laid at Wikipedia, let's just stick with that.

The question, I'm asking is: "SO WHAT?" The answer is barked back at us in this way: "the Christmas holiday we celebrate today is indicative of Christianity's willingness to absorb the world's customs and traditions, and forget its simple roots in the historical reality of Jesus Christ."

Each time i see comment like that, I'm certain at least of one thing! That the speaker has not done either his homework nor the proper necessary thinking through the issue. Why would a person go with the assumption that it is Christianity that has been compromised and affected by pagan practices. Why do they always forget the other side of the coin, which is - Some of the ancient pagan cults have been severely compromised by the advent of Christianity to the point that today most have been completely extinct. Meaning, It is not Christianity that were compromised but the old pagan religions that were, and they lost it!

We even have evidence that those pagans religions went almost if not completely extinct because of Christianity, to the point that people need to go back and delve into old historical documents to even find out about their presumed origin. Why do that and look into dusty books if it was clearly seen? simple, because they are no more. Their memories have faded into oblivion. The light of Christianity has effectively in many ways turned off the pagan worships and practices by invading it. This is what light does, it invades the darkness, and lo' there is no more darkness.

Even if everything that was said about the Christmas tree, day, celebration and so on were true, we should remember that some things are only bad when a meaning is attached to it. However when the meaning changes, that same practice changes the status as well. As an example: people who used to kneel or bow to idols and spirits, after their conversion, they can now still bow to the Father of spirits and not be condemned of doing a sinful act. Why? because, the act of kneeling is now regarded as good not bad because of the intention and the person who is now the object of their veneration or reverence. The Old Testament is filled with this kind of examples.

The exception to this are the things that are in themselves morally repugnant. For example; child sacrifice to gods. There is no way to render child sacrifice pure and acceptable to God. They are basically morally wrong. And they are also explicitly prohibited in the Bible (See the book of Deuteronomy). However as for Christmas, in the absence of specific divine utterance against it as a specific day, all people could do is just speculate about its wrongness based on their personal idiosyncratic views and theologies.

Some people when they know that they have lost their argument on this point, they side-step their main argument and come up with new reasons against Christmas. Here is what i heard, it's been quite a while i haven't heard someone use that again since then. Here is what i was told: "Jesus never asked us to remember his birth but his death!"

Well, that was an interesting one, because it moved away from all this tiresome exercises to prove the event to be pagan in essence when for a fact they are evidently not! It just turn out that the form may be similar, but the essence is definitely not! As for the remark above with regard to Jesus' birth and death, this is a pointless case. Jesus asked us to remember the why of his death, not to celebrate it either (which we do at Easter). The other thing Jesus asked people to remember was what the lady who poured the perfume at His feet did - to the point that the gospel should be preached along with what she did for him (see the Gospel of Mark 14:9). So what should we say, that everywhere were the gospel is preached if the story of that woman is not told, should we conclude that the gospel was not fully preached? The book of Acts reports some preaching and nowhere is it shown where this commend of the Lord was expressly followed:

"I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

What am i trying to say? All i want to say is that Jesus' death was indeed important, but this should not mean that his virgin birth should be ignored because of that. It is true that as much as the virgin birth was important, Jesus' death was even more so because it is through His death that we find the justification for the reason He was born in the first place. That is why even at Christmas although it is not emphatically presented, his death is always remember through that event. How? by the description of who he was called. At each Christmas we are reminded that a SAVIOR was born. The savior of the world was born. Only through his bloody death that he effectively put that salvation at the disposal of the world.

So Christmas, whatever the time of the year we may want to celebrate it even if it was at Halloween, would have never lost its divine meaning. The reason we who have been redeemed do celebrate this probable arbitrary day, is because of what it represents for the redeemed of the Lord.

May God Bless You all and wish you an Early Merry Christmas.

Is Christmas Celebration Bad for Christians? part 1

We are getting closer and closer to Christmas. People like me are positively excited (i'll say more on that on a very near future) and other are getting all excited but negatively.

My good friend Maurice has shared with me something from an 'anti-Christmas' guy, so i chose to quote him first. It's an interesting read ... so do you guys have any take on what he wrote? See his comment below.

I'll make my comment later on! I promise!

Have a nice day in Jesus' name,
..................

No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on. From the biblical description most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter. So why do we celebrate Christ's birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th?

The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.

In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture. In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born.

In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was
observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.

Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means "wheel," the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.

The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.

In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ's birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them. Christmas (Christ-Mass) as we know it today, most historians agree, began in
Germany, though Catholics and Lutherans still disagree about which church celebrated it first. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany. A prominent Lutheran minister of the day cried blasphemy: "Better that they should look to
the true tree of life, Christ."

The controversy continues even today in some fundamentalist sects. Variations of this pagan holiday flourished throughout the first few centuries after Jesus Christ, but it probably wasn't until 336 AD that Emperor Constantine officially converted this pagan tradition into the "Christian" holiday of Christmas.

Origin of Christmas - What Really Matters?

The true origin of Christmas is filled with controversy and compromise. A quick study will reveal a number of disturbing roots that we haven't been able to cover in this brief article. In short, the Christmas holiday we celebrate today is indicative of Christianity's willingness to absorb the world's customs and traditions, and forget its simple roots in the historical reality of Jesus Christ. Christmas should be nothing more than a simple, yet wonderful reminder of Christ's humble beginning as a human child in this world. His birth merely
set the stage for the power, glory, and salvation that would be revealed in His life, death, and resurrection! Whether it's December 25th, sometime in late September, or any other day of the year, we should use each and every opportunity to reflect on Jesus Christ and His message of hope for all of us.

The Danger of Blind Tolerance

I was reading Maximus post on God vs Men where he take charge against atheism and strident secularization. In the process of doing that he made a rather interesting case for Islam. Of course it has no theological value but has a rather powerful cultural significance. Since he chose Rwanda as a case study for the positive impact of Islam he was able to pull it off rather well. If he had chosen Islam as lived and experienced in Middle East and the former soviet countries during the Bosnia tumult, his case would have been rather unattractive and crushed down. Nevertheless his point and comments about Rwanda is rather interesting. I am sure you'll find it relevant given our recent debates with the Islamic leaders in Kigali 6 months ago.   
      

Islam…was a small faith in the country of Rwanda at the time of the genocide, almost non-existent. It is rising now faster then ever, mosques overflowing, and playing a part in healing wounds and bringing forgiveness to that country. Why is Islam growing in Rwanda? In their own words:

During the genocide, Muslims were among the few Rwandans who protected both neighbors and strangers. Elsewhere, many Hutus hunted down or betrayed their Tutsi neighbors and strangers suspected of belonging to the minority.

But the militiamen and soldiers didn’t dare go after Tutsis in Muslim neighborhoods like Biryogo, said Yvette Sarambuye, a 29-year-old convert. ”If a Hutu Muslim tried to kill someone hidden in our neighborhoods, he would first be asked to take the holy Quran and tear it apart to renounce his faith,” said Sarambuye, a Tutsi widowed mother of three who survived the slaughter by hiding with Muslims. “No Muslim dared to violate the holy book, and that saved a lot of us.”

For many Hutu extremists, Muslims were regarded as a group apart, not to be targeted in the genocide.

Muslims take God and the Quran VERY seriously. They don’t have faith or belief…they KNOW God exists and that his word came down to man through the holy prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

You will note that while Muslim Hutus did partake in the slaughter, but when they were confronted by their own religious community and asked to leave Islam because it forbids the killing of innocents, they put down their machetes, at least in Muslim neighborhoods. Islam saved lives…by the Koran alone. In contrast to the Christian majority that the country is now moving away from, the Bible did not save anyone as a holy book:

Although the Christian clergy in many communities struggled to protect Tutsis and often died with them, more than 20 Roman Catholic and Protestant priests, nuns and pastors are facing charges related to the killings. Rwandan courts already have convicted two Catholic priests and sentenced them to death.

… the message of the Koran and the small Muslim community spared countless lives that would otherwise have been lost as there was no sanity to be found anywhere during that black time in Rwanda’s history…except if you found yourself in a Muslim village.

Isn't it fascinating if the story are completely true? When I first read this at Vox Day blog, I was interested in his diagnostic given the fact that it isn't the first time he gives it:

"The Rwandan church failed in much the same way that the Christian church in the West has failed. We tolerate the unrepentant sinners in our midst rather than doing what is explicitly commanded in the Bible, confronting them, demanding repentance, and expelling them from the church community if they will not do so. And in both cases, the resulting consequence is that people walk away from a faith that is not true to itself. The church that will not confront the adulterer, the thief, the homosexual, the liar, or the gossip is one that will not confront the murderer either when he appears at their door, demanding the blood of the innocent."

Vox is spot on. Authenticity is what is required of the disciples of Jesus by Jesus himself. He expressly called his followers - his disciples - light of the world and salt of the world. Lacking to walk in light - read integrity and authenticity - as sons of light we loose our value and relevant just like a salt that would loose its saltiness. Uselessness becomes then their label. Tolerating people like that in our midst is dangerous for our reputation.

I also read a comment made by Kajeneri Christian in his Facebook wall:

"Christianity is not failing because of the evil doings done by Born-again Christians, but rather the fact that we have abandoned our regular customs, nowadays neglected by many: morning & evening devotion, fulfillment of vows, grateful hearts, Bible reading, Meditation of the Word of God, bearing fruits which is a result of Intimate fellowship with the Holy Spirit, Love/ brotherhood Love, Winning souls for Christ, etc. The lack of all these basics principles/customs are the one killing Christianity today. God help us!"

What he was trying to say wasn't to exonerate the evil done by the 'Born-again' but rather to bring to light the fact that those evil acts are symptomatic. They proceed from a deeper problem, the lack of genuine faith on the part of some 'born again' Christian folks.

In few weeks we will be celebrating the first coming of our Lord Jesus through the traditional Christmas event. And the Catholic church has called his members to take the call of season called the 'Advent' seriously. This season is one of the season in the catholic church that calls the members to practice their faith through acts of kindness to the poor and so on. Christmas is good season to reminds us about our mission as Church and the purpose of Christ coming. However a religious season of holiness is not enough to really change people's hearts. A genuine encounter with Jesus is the key to a man's heart change.

The human heart need more. It needs a rather complete makeover to even start valuing things that are sacred - such as life. I remember reading a book written from a Rwandan Catholic priest who survived the genocide. He tells the story of man coming to him with a bleeding machete, and at the sight of it he regretfully informed the slaughterer: "I regret to have baptized you without converting you." This statement coming from a priest is really revealing. It reminds me a catholic movement of apologists coming from New Zealand that had/has for motto: "Evangelizing the Baptized." It has become clear to many over the years now that we have baptized people who aren't even Christians in the first place. That which seemed restricted often in Catholicism in the past is now as present as ever in protestant churches and ministries. We have dangerous people in high profile ministry seats and we allow them to be there at our own perils. We have gifted men but they have no authenticity and that is what is killing us. I wish at time I could just be Jesus' hand so that he could use me handling some whip and drive the merchant away from the Temple once again. They just bring a lot of confusion and darken the purpose of Christ through the Church which is Love.


I'll end with this last admonishment - do not compromise the faith by allowing tolerance of what is prohibited in the scripture. If you ignore the warning, you might just live long enough to witness the consequences of your unwise tolerance.

Check My Book here or more here.

End 2011: It Is Time To Celebrate!!!!!

We are getting closer to the end of the year. Which means it is PARTY TIME! Right? The partying season has just started. Here are just some of those interesting events that fill this season: Halloween, Thanks-Giving Day (for the reasonable traditionalists), Turkey Day (for the unreasonable modernists), Christmas, New Year Eve, New Year After Party, Weddings, Birthday parties, imaginary birthday parties, School Holidays Parties, anniversaries of all sorts and ETC. With all these, you may feel at one point that your pockets and
your bank accounts will have holes - i don't mean little nails type of holes. I mean end of the world - ARMAGEDDONS Holes' type!!! But be assured, the fault ain't from your banks nor from your pocket design. The reason will be as always - YOU!! You'll have to bare the responsibility of your financial status by the end of this festive season.

You'll have to take ownership of your finances through the mastering of your desires and the ever increasing self-gratifying desire that shoot off on these festive season. What I can assure though, we can't avoid doing some fiesta time to time, especially if you are part of the 21st century youth. It is in our DNA to find excuses to party! The good news though, you can choose where to party, when to party, with who to party and how to party and most importantly how MUCH you'll party! That's the great blessing of free will. You can choose - hence don't be enslaved by peer-pressure. Don't even be a slave of your own emotions because if you are then the 2nd January 2012 - you'll be utterly, irrevocably and totally bankrupt! That's my prediction and it is as good as anything you can take to the bank! :)

When i was still in South Africa, i remember liquor advisement ending with note of caution: "Drink Responsibly". Well, that was so nice of them to say but they never showed nor even hinted how on earth are people supposed to 'Drink Responsibly' strong liquors! So i also feel like letting some of you down since
you just know within you without a shadow of a doubt that whatever i say and whatever you decide, you'll just end up the year with an empty bank account! You don't want that but you just know that this is inevitable. Not even EXORCISM can help you. Laying of hands will just leave you bald but sheer frequency of hands use on you as the weeks rolls down to the new year after parties!

It is at time like this that i will recommend you to re-read the Leadership posts i sent during this November month 2011 in the "ToDay with E.G series". I particularly recommend the use of the Table of priorities in my First Things First post. Make a draft of that table and as honestly as you can fill in the 4 quadrants:

Q1: Important/Urgent; Q2: Important/Not-Urgent
Q3: Not-Important/Urgent; Q3: Not-Important/Not-Urgent

Based on the availability of your funds, fill in the events and celebrations you want to attend. Correction, where did I have my head!? of course you WANT to attend all! Let me say it this way rather, start filling in the events and celebrations You NEED, You SHOULD and You HAVE TO attend as priorities!

In the rare case you happen to not know those priorities, and even by the end of re-reading the first 5 posts on Leadership you can't still figure out the priorities during this festive season and you still look at all the invitations for fiesta from friends, family, workplaces and the Media (News paper, e-News,TV and Radio) as events you NEED and HAVE TO attend - then my dear friend, YOU ARE TOASTED ... Completely!!!

Have a nice weekend in Jesus' name.

P.S: I feel good - Christmas is upon US! Don't U feel that ....  Euphoria ?