I find it disturbing, the amount of people who ignorantly call Christmas a "pagan holiday".
Here's the biblical truth. In Corinthians 1:8-13, God says this:
8 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Above, we see Paul addressing people scolding others because they eat meat sacrificed to idols. This is the exact same argument as scolding people for celebrating holidays that are supposedly pagan. It's as close as an analogy as you'll ever find. In both cases, you have someone wagging their finger at someone else for partaking in something that is supposedly dedicated to paganism.
To summarize, Paul is saying this:
There are no pagan gods. They're not real. "We know an idol is nothing". There are no other gods, only one God.
Paul then says feel free to chow down on that food sacrificed to idols, because we know idols aren't real and there are no pagan gods. It's ok, go ahead and do it.
But there's one caveat.
There are people who are completely ignorant of God's word. They don't realize pagan gods aren't real. They don't realize that meat sacrificed to idols is meaningless. When they see you eating the meat that is supposedly sacrificed to idols, it can be a stumbling block for them.
That's the only circumstance where you can't eat it.
Now bringing back the analogy to holidays such as Christmas or Easter, there are people who know God's word and there are fools who believe pagan gods are real. There are people who can take any holiday and make it a holiday in which God is exalted, and there are fools who scold anyone who would consider celebrating it.
And the ridiculous part is that Christians already revere Christmas and Easter, not as being pagan, but as being Christ-centered. If the analogy were 1 to 1 equal, December 25 and Easter could be openly advertised as pagan holidays and its still ok to celebrate them -- but instead they are already widely seen as being Christ-centered holidays. This makes the disparaging of these holidays extra ridiculous.
God says you can eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as you're giving Him the glory (and not surrounded by weak-minded fools who are ignorant of the bible). Certainly, you can also celebrate holidays that are widely seen as a celebration of God and Jesus.
One last thing -- to those who just can't wait to type in the comment section how much you hate celebrating Christmas, it's also American culture. Right now there are groups dedicated to stripping America of all culture. You don't like Christmas, and neither does the blue-haired TDS Karens. Ask yourself why your goals are so seamlessly aligning with the far left.
It's important to define precisely what you mean by "pagan". Pagan does not mean some kind of separate religion opposed to Christianity. The Latin pāgānus was originally meant as a term to refer to a “country dweller” or “civilian.” The term was primarily used by Roman soldiers, who thought of themselves as soldiers of Christ in the Christian religion, to describe anyone who wasn’t in the army; therefore, Paganism originated as military slang.
I don't know a lot about Christianity in general but I have spent a lot of time studying how it arrived in my own country, England. Prior to about the 3rd century almost everyone lived as peasant farmers in isolated groups. They were "pagans" in the literal sense but had little education or communications. Travel beyond the next village was unlikely, so there was no formalised cohesive religion, but they did have elements of religious thought based on Germanic religions and observation of the natural world, seasons, lunar cycle and so on.
The story goes that Christianity was brought to England as a religious mission either by Joseph of Arimathea or Lucius of Brittania but I suspect those are just myths. In reality Christianisation was a slow process which started to take off in about the 6th century and yes there certainly were adaptations of older religious observances. There had to be some give and take, as not everyone welcomed having a new religion effectively imposed on them.
Fun fact: Christmas was actually banned in the mid-1600s in both England and Massachusetts.
Paganus and pagan mean different things. Do you see anyone saying "paganus" today? No. Also your comment is doing mental gymnastics for no reason.
What do you propose we call worshipping nature gods, then? Or odin, thor, etc?
The existence of other religions, Pagan or otherwise, is no threat to Christianity. It is not an either/or.
Perhaps you'd like to rename the days of the week then to be more acceptable to Christians?
Sunday - day of the sun
Monday - day of the moon
Tuesday - from tīwesdæg, meaning “Tiu’s day.” Tiu was a Germanic god of the sky and war. His Latin equivalent is Mars
Wednesday - day of Odin also called Wodin
Thursday - Thor's day
Friday - from Old Norse Freyjudagr “day of Freyja”. Her Latin equivalent is Venus, which some modern languages have preserved for example French, where Friday is called “Vendredi”, deriving from the Latin “Veneris dies” meaning “day of Venus”
Saturday - Saturn's day
Paul said all that, not God
2 Timothy 3
Christianity 101: The 66 canonical books of the bible are all written by those directly inspired by God.
That includes Paul.
Not so - you miss the Apocrypha - and before anyone gets upset it was part of the KJV until late 1800's The Ethiopian Orthodox has 88, Eastern orthodox has 76, Luther argued for many NT books to be removed? Scholarship now demonstrated several of Paul's letters including both Timothy letters were not written by Paul they contain language not in use in the 1st Century. And d when Paul/whoever made this statement there was only the Tanakh - the Jewish Old Testament, and in that 1 Kings & 2 Kings were a single book, this applies also to Samuel, Chronicles so be careful what you claim
There is no evidence the apocrypha was inspired. One of the books says you can smoke a fish to drive away a (SUPERNATURAL) demonic entity!! Ridiculous!
So when a conical book says dip in the river to was away leprosy that was ridiculous, or throw a log into bitter waters to make them sweet, or quails just dropping out of the sky to feed a nation ridiculous? Or putting a bronze serpent on a pole to heal deadly snake bite or a man being taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire, or a dead man returning to life when thrown onto of a prophets corpse all ridiculous - man tge Bible says nothing is too difficult for God, or do you want to debunk it all?
None of that involves a supernatural entity somehow being able to be affected by a physical gas. If they can pass through walls then physical gas shouldn't be able to enter or touch them.
Plainly you have no idea for the power and plans of God. Isaiah 55:8-9 My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts higher then yours.
He is the Creator He sets the rules and if He says this is the way to deal with such issues then He is right and you and I are wrong. You and I cannot even take our next breath is He says No!
paul also wrote that verse 😆
You also wrote this comment. Guess that makes it false.
are you saying Paul didn't author 2 Timothy?
Mentor. The words of the Bible are God’s. Spoken through His prophets/apostles. Those who don’t believe what the Bible states as God’s Word, usually have problems believing in God in the first place.
who determined what books go in the Bible?
God did, of course.
I'm curious though, why are you coming to a Q board in search for bible apologetics? If you were genuinely interested in anything other than division there are better sources for instruction.
Ultimately? Easily answered. God. None of the men involved in the process of recognizing the canon of Scripture were infallible. But God is. By His power through the Holy Spirit at work in these men, God gave us the Bible—His everlasting Word (Matt. 24:35).
Whoa wait are we deciding which apostle knew the voice of God? No offense but I trust Paul’s interpretation of Gods word WAY more than yours or mine or anyone else who didn’t meet Jesus.
when, exactly, did Paul meet Jesus?
Acts 9. Paul's Road to Damascus conversion followed later by Paul's instruction by Christ.
Paul's further commentary:
Galatians 1:12-16 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how zI persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born,1 and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;....
but a human wrote that and there's no scientific proof that happened, that means its FAAAAAKE!!!!1!11!11
sarcasm signals not included so you guys thought this was an actual sentiment.
Paul was merely God's scribe, as God intended for him and all other Biblical scribes to be.
If your god is science, your god is very small indeed, because even your 3.5 lbs. of grey mater can't comprehend the vastness and intricacy of all the Creation. Tony Fauci had the arrogance to say, "I am the science." Maybe you worship him.
God actually wrote the 10 commandments with his own finger (Exodus 31:18) and one suspects that in your rebellion you'd challenge that too.
You didn't meet Him, therefore nothing you say is true. Get crushed by your own boulder.
I never claimed that my words were Gods. That was Paul.
also the trinity and holy ghost kind of invalidates your theory but that's another subject altogether
I would never recommend my online words go in the Bible 😆 🤣
Well you and Paul share THAT at least. He never imagined his words would become scripture he was just living and building as he went. It was those that came generations later who determined what became the bible.
then how is it the word of God?
How do you claim to be evangelical but deny that Jesus is the Word of God and scriptures are the inspired reflection upon that word?
Seriously? LoL. When did Paul meet Jesus? Was probably the most dramatic meeting in the Bible. Saul to Paul.
the shapeshifting origin story lmao
good one
if that's the case then I met Jesus too since it's after his death
So why are you in this thread? Just to be argumentative? You don’t believe in God, or apparently Jesus either, so why are you even in here? Just to attack those who do? Interesting. If none of this pertains to you, shouldn’t you be on your way? Or maybe a mod can escort you out?
wot?
I dont believe in PAUL.
So you’re a “proof-texter”.
proof-texter, someone who selects verses to fit their agenda. Also; the practice of quoting scripture out of its original context to support a pre-existing belief or argument, rather than letting the text speak for itself, often leading to misinterpretation and distortion of its intended meaning. It involves pulling isolated verses to "prove" a point, ignoring the surrounding text, genre, and historical setting, which can be manipulative and weaken biblical understanding. While Jesus and the Apostles used scripture, they did so with deep contextual understanding, unlike the flawed method of proof-texting.
And now you know. We know. At least there is a remedy for it. There’s hope for your brother. 👍
On the road to Damascus.
😆 🤣
ok after Jesus died he revealed himself to a Jewish hater instead of his legions of followers
muh doctrine
History—do you know it at all?
Paul is vital to the spread of Christianity. Yes, he was Saul—a Pharisee. And like all the apostles, he was Jewish. You’re right about one thing: he was a hater. He despised the followers of Christ. He hunted them. He murdered converts to the very faith he would later give his entire life to—and die for.
Amazing, isn’t it, what an encounter with Christ can do?
That encounter didn’t make his life easier. It forced him to take refuge with the very people he had been trying to destroy. And they—far more than you or I—had reason to fear and hate him. These were their friends. Their families. They had every reason to believe Saul was lying, that he meant to betray them all. They likely had to restrain themselves from killing him outright.
And yet—he proved himself.
Not only that, he became the instrument through which the gospel moved from Jew to Gentile. Remove Paul, and you remove the lynchpin between Jewish and non-Jewish believers. Without him, the message of Christ remains confined—accessible only through Messianic Judaism, rather than offered to all.
Paul is also one of the few figures whose life intersects with firm Roman historical records. He is not myth. He is not legend. He is anchored in history.
So tell me—when you dismiss Paul, what exactly is your hope? That the earliest disciples were fools? That they were deceived? That you, centuries removed, know better than those who lived it, questioned him, feared him, and—reluctantly at first—accepted him?
Who are you to presume greater wisdom than they?
That is not discernment. That is hubris.
What's your point? All of the Bible is written by His servants. You wrote your comment, not God.
no bro Jesus himself wrote my comment.
trust me I met him on the road a few weeks ago
I am genuinely sad for you.
And I don’t say that to provoke you, or to sound clever, or to claim any moral height. I say it because if you truly knew what it is to encounter Him—really knew—I believe you would understand why none of this shakes me.
My hope for you is simple and sincere: that you meet Him someday. Not through fear. Not through loss. Not the way I did—but in ease, and in peace.
I wasn’t always like this. I doubted. I dismissed. I thought I understood more than others did. I thought my intellect would be enough. It wasn’t.
I met Him at the moment I realized my cleverness was useless in the face of real evil—when survival itself was no longer theoretical.
And while I would never wish that path on anyone, I no longer regret it. What brought me to my knees is also what made me certain.
So yes—I hope your encounter comes gently. But if it doesn’t… even then, it will still be enough.
I am extremely evangelical Christian.
I believe Paul was the "wolf in sheep's clothing" Jesus warned us about
A lying subversive jew
“A wolf in sheep’s clothing”…might wanna look into a mirror when you say that, in my opinion from your own beliefs/words. Your hatred is on full display.
So you would have preferred the gospel remained with Jewish people? Are you then a Messianic Jew?
I really appreciate you saying this magavoices. It’s clearly another way “they” try to divide us. Thanks so much.
Though I've preached Hebrew roots for many years, this year it appears to me that there was never really any evidence that December 25 partook of original pagan derivation. Hippolytus published the date before 211, and Aurelian only stole the date for Sol Invictus in 274, before which it was not notable in Rome. Saturnalia and solstice didn't match, and the fact that Hippolytus makes a passing reference to the proximity of solstice isn't either his first reason or a pagan reason, because Noah emphasized that solstice would return every year, Gen. 8, giving it its covenant application. Since the solstice never fell on December 25 during any of the subject period, it appears that we were oversold on the pagan connection argument. Further, evidence from Josephus, and Simeon in Luke 2, shows that what Julian December 25 commemorated was the Annunciation and Conception of Jesus in 5 BC, who was born in the autumn of 4 BC. Since that is Gregorian December 23 today, it's eminently appropriate to celebrate December 23-25 this year as the 2,029th anniversary of the Nativity (Conception) of Jesus. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Joyous Festivus (Festivus is a Christian holiday now).
This is the kind of information I like to research. Thanks again.
The feast of Hanukkah aka Feast of Dedication whilst not of God's Leviticus 23 Feasts never the less was celebrated by Jesus [John 10:22] It has two great themes Light and Joy - both plainly associated with Jesus
Due to the variable nature of the luna-solar Rabbinic calendar the earliest start for this 8 day feast is 27th November and latest finish January 3rd. It starts on the 25th Day of the 9th month aka as Kislev.
As an incarnation this range of dates would certainly encompass in some years 25 December but not as a fixed date. Many of us who shun 25th December celebration choose to recognise Hanukkah as a time to celebrate. BUT the church chose 25th December in the 4th century - the early Christians did not celebrate christmas at all. The 25th December date was chosen in an attempt to deflect the now state religion from Pagan festivals. It was a mistake and no one has had the courage to call a halt!
Yeah, I've kept Hanukkah since the 90s and phased out Christmas at that time. So I affirm you entirely. However, in the last couple years in continuing the path of studying the Hebrew roots I find that there was some (but not complete) validity in what the early church did.
Most know Herod died in 4 BC. Because Luke has Jesus returning to Nazareth right after the 40th day without easy insertion of a trip to Egypt afterward (though it's easy before), the death of Herod is very close to Jesus's birth, not 1-2 years off as people misread Matthew. Other evidence, including Abijah, puts it at fall of 4 BC, particularly the first day of Tabernacles (I say Sat 6 Oct Julian at 3 a.m.). When I tracked this back to the Annunciation and Conception, I find that Hanukkah began on 25 Dec Julian in 5 BC (25 Kislev) and that Simeon made ten references back to Haggai 2 who gives the prophetic date of blessings starting after 24 Kislev. Then when I accounted for how Hippolytus (and Clement of Alexandria) got their varying and conflicted data, the best answer is that there was an oral tradition of placing Jesus's conception on December 25, because Mary would've been aware of the Julian date of her visitation, seeing as she treasured all these things.
So by 200 according to those two fathers there were already various attempts to remember the birth of Christ, though it was far different from commercial "Christmas". The later formalization of December 25 (and the other three quarterly 25s) was a mistake. It is true that Aurelian completed a temple on December 25, 274, and set that up as a competing date with the Christian testimony of December 25 already being one of our own dates; but that doesn't prevent Rome from reclaiming the date later (even though they added mistaken details in folk practice).
Let me add, when I started this stuff (having been a Sunday keeper), I realized the seventh day was the Sabbath and asked God how the whole church could be ignorant. His answer was, if they can do so well without having the Biblical Sabbath, imagine how much better they'll do when they get it right. That is, there's a reason the church was permitted to rest on Sunday. In time I realized that there's a complementariness to Sabbath and Lord's Day and there's a way to accommodate both. Since last year I've realized that the same is true of Hanukkah and Christ's Mass. I've called a halt whenever I could show that a practice was pagan, but I also bided my time when I couldn't, and it appears the actual truth is more complex than any simple path and we need to recognize why God permitted these things in history.
When Jesus returns, if he tells everyone to rest on the seventh day and come to Jerusalem for Tabernacles, they will obey him, but he may have more nuanced commands for us and so we are doing our best to practice everything he may want of us in advance. That's my reason for keeping the Mosaic festivals, and it's also becoming my reason for purifying the churchianity dates. (I haven't linked any of my studies here, but feel free to ask, or to get started by searching for "Chronology" at c/Christianity.)
Jeremiah 10:1-5 (KJV)
Edited to add: In verse 2 there's a reason God says be not dismayed at the signs of heaven because Winter Solstice falls around Dec. 21 to about Dec. 24, depending on the year. Winter Solstice/Hibernal Solstice is the shortest day and longest night of the year when the Earth is tilted the furthest away from the Sun. After that the days start getting longer. It was celebrated as a holiday by Heathens.
To be clear, are you calling Christmas a pagan holiday that is not to be celebrated?
I didn't say pagan anywhere. You need to learn what "pagan" means. Pagans could be Christians. That said, God is saying it's a Heathen celebration. Argue with Him.
It means exactly what everyone already knows it means.
Sorry, I'm not going to play the "I'm the only one that knows the actual meaning of an extremely common word, and you don't" game.
God also said to put people to death who work on Sunday.
In modernity, do we put people to death who work on Sunday? I know why this Old Testament scripture doesn't apply today, I'm curious if you do.
I wasn't arguing with you. I asked a question because I didn't want to put words in your mouth.
The origins of Christmas ARE pagan some examples are the tree, yulelog, holly and ivy, mistletoe and gift giving.
"Thou shalt have no other gods but me" There are other gods.
Little g God big g makes no attempt to hide the existence of other beings Angels Demons Spirits . Man’s elevation of such beings does not place them on the same tier as God.
They are called gods, but they are not gods.
It's like a child saying they are afraid of the boogeyman, where there isn't one.
Referencing the boogeyman does not make the boogeyman real.
The above 2 verses are as clear as can be. There are no other gods, there is only one God.
My point as well. Man placed both idols and unclean spirits into the category of gods. This is why the bible refers to other gods. It is unfortunate English does not have more specific words sometimes but in English we denote the difference between God ( the only) other deities worshiped with a little g. This is why other gods are mentioned in the bible. People worshiped other gods that happened but that does not verify them as equals to the Lord God. It is an argument made a lot in some circles to justify the validity of bringing back ancient beliefs. Fun Fact Paganism is making a huge comeback so if you don’t encounter a lot of younger people be prepared with many arguments such as these. I am stroll trying to learn as much as I can so I can give an accurate accounting to why these “arguments “ against Christ are flawed. Telling them that scripture says so does not work with non believers thus the entomology lesson which does seem to present a logical explanation to counter their assumptions
All religions, pagen or not do exactly the same thing. Each of them harness and harvest large numbers of human beings thoughts and feelings. Then they seperate us from each other. They "guide" us... but only away from each other.
Ask them all this question, "Where is the God in that?" So, God so loved the world he wanted us controlled into groups to fight each other?
Call me stupid, but that sound like something we humans would do... not God.
Step outside all control with no fear. Fear is their tool of choice.
Nice strawman. People are divided naturally. You also assume it is a bad thing. May I ask what evidence you have that is a bad thing? Is division objectively or subjectively bad?
So your religion also does division?
Also, Jesus loves ALL of us. Unite under JESUS. It is humans who want to be divided against Him.
I admit, my statement is speaking in general terms. However, ask a Baptist if Muslims and Hindus will make it into heaven.
Ask a Muslim if Christians will make it into heaven.
Ask Catholics if any non-christian will make it into heaven.
These positions, "Ours is the only way" by default divides us. Agree?
Do you know any of the reasons people say it was a pagan holiday? I ask because I did not see any of the reasons addressed or 'debunked.'