Closed What Does the Bible Say About Christmas?

[Gentleman007]

The Bible’s answer
The Bible does not give the date of Jesus’ birth, nor does it say that we should celebrate his birthday. As McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia states: “The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of NT [New Testament] origin.”
Instead, an examination of the history of Christmas exposes its roots in pagan religious rites. The Bible shows that we offend God if we try to worship him in a way that he does not approve of.—You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..
History of Christmas customs

1. Celebrating Jesus’ birthday: “The early Christians did not celebrate [Jesus’] birth because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom.”—The World Book Encyclopedia.
2. December 25: There is no proof that Jesus was born on that date. Church leaders likely chose this date to coincide with pagan festivals held on or around the winter solstice.
3. Gift-giving, feasting, partying: The Encyclopedia Americana says: “Saturnalia, a Roman feast celebrated in mid-December, provided the model for many of the merry-making customs of Christmas. From this celebration, for example, were derived the elaborate feasting, the giving of gifts, and the burning of candles.” The Encyclopædia Britannicanotes that “all work and business were suspended” during Saturnalia.
4. Christmas lights: According to The Encyclopedia of Religion, Europeans decorated their homes “with lights and evergreens of all kinds” to celebrate the winter solstice and to combat evil spirits.
5. Mistletoe, holly: “The Druids ascribed magical properties to the mistletoe in particular. The evergreen holly was worshiped as a promise of the sun’s return.”—The Encyclopedia Americana.
6. Christmas tree: “Tree worship, common among the pagan Europeans, survived after their conversion to Christianity.” One of the ways in which tree worship survived is in the custom of “placing a Yule tree at an entrance or inside the house in the midwinter holidays.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

 

[Kenji Akashi]

Do you believe in god?

 

[Pewdy]

Refuting the ‘Pagan Roots of Christmas’ Claim
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.12/22/2016
Share
ONE OF THE FIRST SHOWS about Christmas I watched as a kid was A Charlie Brown Christmas. I haven’t watched it in years, but I haven’t forgotten the culminating scene where Charlie Brown shouts above the noise to demand an answer to a question he’s struggling with: What is Christmas all about? As we all know, Linus steps forward and proclaims the birth of Christ.
The scene is interesting to me as a Catholic. It’s reminiscent of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where, after much debate among the apostles, Peter rises and puts the debate on *********ion to rest. Linus was, of course, our second pope, and it seems no small coincidence that, amid all the noise, it was Linus who delivered the truth of Christmas to Charlie Brown and his friends.
The show first aired in 1965, and it became a holiday favorite for many, but modern critics dislike the show for its Christian sentiment. It’s a lot more than sentiment—it’s catechesis! I can’t name another Christmas movie that goes so far as to recite an entire section of the Bible to discuss the reason we celebrate the birth of Christ (see Luke 2:8-14).

Unfortunately, times have changed, and fewer people are willing to recognize that Christmas is a Christian celebration. If Charlie Brown entered a crowded room today to ask what Christmas is all about, he’d get mixed answers. Perhaps out of a desire to further secularize Christmas, many claim that it is not Christian at all, that it was “invented.”
The modern Catholic has many fronts to defend, one of them being the so-called “pagan roots” of Christmas. Around Christmastime you are likely to hear the objection that Christmas is a Christo-pagan holiday, a mash-up of pagan beliefs and Christian celebration. Here are two of the objections you might meet, and a helpful way to respond to each.
“Christians coopted Christmas from the winter solstice celebration of Sol Invictus.”
Yes, there were mid-winter celebrations in religions outside Christianity during the time of the early Church. In fact, as with Easter, the Eastern and the Western churches observed Christmas differently, while, until recently, the Armenians didn’t celebrate it at all. The West led the way with a distinctive nativity-based celebration, concluding with the holy Mass. Christmas was not an assimilated celebration until the fourth century.
Does that mean that the apostle John, and Sts. Polycarp and Irenaeus—three men who were apostolically connected—did not celebrate Christmas? Probably not. But there is nothing wrong with this. There was never a debate about the birth of Christ, but the celebration of it as Christmas took time to develop.
The person who maintains Christmas’s “pagan roots” has to ask himself the following questions:
1. After centuries of the Church’s persecution for not observing pagan holidays, where is the proof of influence?
2. Who influenced whom? Did Christianity influence pagans to begin to adopt a more public and concrete celebration, or did they “Christianize” a pagan event? We can observe historically that the two celebrations were present at the time, but neither scenario is a problem for the Christian, because the Church has the ability to Christianize people and celebrations alike. Light overcame darkness at the celebration of Sol Invictus, and, in Christ, darkness was defeated by the real luminousness of Christ. Paganism had a hint, but Christianity had the fulfillment.
Remind your objector of what Paul said to the Greeks at the Areopagus:
“For as I passed along, and observed the object of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘to an unknown god.’ What therefore your worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you . . . that [every nation of men] should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him” (Acts 17:23, 27)
A desire for the “unknown God” is written on the hearts of all men. The Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it this way:
The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for. (CCC 27)
“The Christmas tree comes from pagan origins and is condemned in the Bible.”
The objector can have a field day with this one. Evergreens are a near-universal symbol of hope in the winter season. They represented resurrection (triumph of life over death) for the Egyptians, everlasting life for the Scandinavians and Druids, and agricultural anticipation (to the god Saturnalia) for the Greeks and Romans. But the tree is not recognized as a use of Christmas celebration until the time of the Reformation.
More closely connected to the ancient church is the use of evergreen wreaths. Your objector might say that it came around the same time as the popularity of the pagan celebration Saturnalia. The truth is, Tertullian wrote as early as A.D. 190-220 that Christians hang more “wreaths and laurels” than the pagans (who hang it for the “gate gods”) at their doors.
In this letter, Tertullian condemned the wreath as something into which to put hope as did the pagans with their temples, over that of Jesus who is the true Light in which we are the actual temples of the Spirit. He wasn’t condemning the décor! He ends with, “You are a light of the world, and a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple.” There’s little evidence that the Church adopted the practice from the pagans they were trying to convert.
The passage in the Bible your objector likely is referring is Jeremiah 10:3-4.
“Thus says the LORD: Learn not the customs of the nations, and have no fear of the signs of the heavens, though the nations fear them. For the cult idols of the nations are nothing, wood cut from the forest, wrought by craftsmen with the adze, adorned with silver and gold. With nails and hammers they are fastened, that they may not totter”(NAB).
Let’s get one thing straight: Jeremiah was not talking about Christmas trees. He was writing hundreds of years before Christmas became a celebration. He was pointing out the idolatry of the people of that day and, like Tertullian, was warning against the idolatry of those who put their hope in earthly gods and things.
Near to this, the objector must understand that Christians are not intent on worshiping their trees and are certainly not putting them in their entryways to deter spirits—perhaps for some carolers and eggnog, but not for protection.
Conclusion
There is nothing wrong with the Church baptizing certain practices of other religions. The objector is claiming the Church derived its beliefs from these celebrations when it only assimilated such seasonal celebrations and symbols. St. Patrick did the same with the clover to illuminate and demonstrate the reality of the Trinity, as did St. Paul in explaining the “unknown god” at the Areopagus. Paul did not derive the idea of God from the Greeks that day, and Patrick did not derive the Trinity from a leaf.
We don’t believe that Christians hold the patent on truth. Instead, we believe that God has allowed hints of himself in other religions. In other words, just because a specific religion does not contain the whole truth does not mean it contains no truth. If you witness to a pagan who believes a wreath will save him, maybe you can show him how Jesus is the fulfillment of that promise of everlasting life. Then, like the cross that hangs from our necks, we can display a wreath to remind us what is true. In this way, Christianity has the distinct ability to assimilate the “hints” of other religions.
I find the following passage from Vatican II’s Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions especially enlightening:
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to himself (Nostra Aetate 4).

 

[Pewdy]

Why is Christmas on December 25?
Debunking the claim that Christians "borrowed" the date from pagans
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.12/16/2013
Share
It’s that time of year again when many Christians encounter claims that You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. deities predating You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. were born on December 25. In popular films, Internet videos, and other media you can find long lists of gods who were supposedly born on the same day.
This idea is not limited to unbelievers. I have heard many Christians claim that the date of Christmas was intended to provide an alternative to pagan celebrations. In some ways it has become a pious legend. On the other hand, some Fundamentalist denominations refuse to celebrate Christmas for this reason.
Of all the deities of whom people make this claim, only three can be found to come close: Saturn, Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun), and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

Saturnalia
Saturnalia was the feast dedicated to the Roman god Saturn. Established around 220 B.C., this feast was originally celebrated on December 17. Eventually the feast was extended to last an entire week, ending on December 23. The supposed connection to Christmas is based on the proximity of the two festivals to each other.
This can be found repeatedly on the Internet. In his article You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., columnist Mark Whittington explains:

It has been suggested that Christians in the 4th Century assigned December 25th as Christ’s birthday (and hence Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. In this way the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday would be sidestepped, thus making the Christianizing of the population easier.

If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.
Sol Invictus and Mithras
The feast of Sol Invictus was the attempt by the Roman emperor Aurelian to reform the cult of Sol, the Roman sun god, and and reintroduce it to his people, inaugurating Sol’s temple and holding games for the first time in A.D. 274. Not only was this festival not annual, it also cannot be historically documented as having been established on December 25 by Aurelian (cf. Steven HijMans, Sol Invictus, The Winter Solstice, and the Origins of Christmas, Mouseion, Series III, vol. 3, pp. 377-398).
According to inscriptions on candle votives and other ancient works of art, there is a link between You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and Sol Invictus. In some cases it appears the Mithraists believed that Mithras and Sol were two different manifestations of the same god. In others they appear to be two gods united as one. These connections are difficult to understand given our limited knowledge of the Mithraic belief system, but they are important because they help to explain why skeptics claim the birthday of Mithras was celebrated on December 25.
A manuscript known as the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. shows the birth of Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25. Given the fact that the Mithraists equated their god with Sol in one way or another, it is understandable that they may have appropriated the date as their own. The problem for the skeptic is that no evidence exists to suggest that Aurelian was a Mithraist, or that he even had Mithraism in mind when he instituted the feast of Sol Invictus. The connection of Mithra to December 25 is only coincidental.
The deathblow to both the Mithras and Sol Invictus parallels is that the Chronography of 354 is the earliest mention of any pagan god being celebrated on December 25. The celebration of the birth of Christ by Christians is also mentioned on the calendar as having been celebrated on that day, which diminishes the likelihood that the pagan feast came first. At the very least, it negates the claim that it can be proved from the historical record that any December 25 pagan festival predates the Christian tradition.
The Reason for Choosing December 25
Although the date of Christ’s birth is not given to us in Scripture, there is documented evidence that December 25 was already of some significance to Christians prior to A.D. 354. One example can be found in the writings of Hyppolytus of Rome, who explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.

The reference to Adam can be understood in light of another of Hyppolytus’ writings, the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., where he explains that Jesus was born nine months after the anniversary of Creation. According to his calculations, the world was created on the vernal equinox, March 25, which would mean Jesus was born nine months later, on December 25.
Nineteenth-century liturgical scholar Louis Duchesne explains that “towards the end of the third century the custom of celebrating the birthday of Christ had spread throughout the whole Church, but that it was not observed everywhere on the same day” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., p. 260).
In the West, the birth of Christ was celebrated on December 25, and in the East on January 6.
Duchesne writes “one is inclined to believe that the Roman Church made choice of the 25th of December in order to enter into rivalry with Mithraism. This reason, however, leaves unexplained the choice of the 6th of January” (ibid., p. 261). His solution, therefore, was that the date of Christ’s birth was decided by using as a starting point the same day on which he was believed to have died. This would explain the discrepancies between the celebrations in the East and West.
Given the great aversion on the part of some Christians to anything pagan, the logical conclusion here is that one celebration has nothing to do with the other. In his book, You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. explains:

The claim used to be made that December 25 developed in opposition to the Mithras myth, or as a Christian response to the cult of the unconquered sun promoted by Roman emperors in the third century in their efforts to establish a new imperial religion. However, these old theories can no longer be sustained. The decisive factor was the connection of creation and Cross, of creation and Christ’s conception (p. 105-107).

While these explanations of how December 25 came to be the date of Christmas are all plausible, we know one thing for sure: The evidence that this day held a special significance to Christians predates the proof of a supposed celebration of Sol Invictus or other pagan deities on that day.
That the Christians chose a date so close to the winter solstice is also not proof that this was done to mimic pagan festivals. The various pagan religions all had festivals spanning the calendar. Whatever month the early Christians might have otherwise chosen would still place Christmas near some pagan celebration, and oppositional theorists would still be making the same claims.
The solstice was important to everyone for agricultural reasons in the same way water is important to the survival of human beings, and so we see rituals involving water showing up in various religions. That doesn’t prove that one borrowed the idea or theme from another.

 

[Pewdy]

Ps: This is why theology is very important, unlike other denominations that doesn't have the true learning about the true church teaching (catholic). For those qho have questions about catholic faith just do a research on catholic.com and pretty much of your questions will be answered logically.


Peaceeee hehehehe

Okey keyo??

 

[Gentleman007]

Why is Christmas on December 25?
Debunking the claim that Christians "borrowed" the date from pagans
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.12/16/2013
Share
It’s that time of year again when many Christians encounter claims that You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. deities predating You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. were born on December 25. In popular films, Internet videos, and other media you can find long lists of gods who were supposedly born on the same day.
This idea is not limited to unbelievers. I have heard many Christians claim that the date of Christmas was intended to provide an alternative to pagan celebrations. In some ways it has become a pious legend. On the other hand, some Fundamentalist denominations refuse to celebrate Christmas for this reason.
Of all the deities of whom people make this claim, only three can be found to come close: Saturn, Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun), and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

Saturnalia
Saturnalia was the feast dedicated to the Roman god Saturn. Established around 220 B.C., this feast was originally celebrated on December 17. Eventually the feast was extended to last an entire week, ending on December 23. The supposed connection to Christmas is based on the proximity of the two festivals to each other.
This can be found repeatedly on the Internet. In his article You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., columnist Mark Whittington explains:

If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.
Sol Invictus and Mithras
The feast of Sol Invictus was the attempt by the Roman emperor Aurelian to reform the cult of Sol, the Roman sun god, and and reintroduce it to his people, inaugurating Sol’s temple and holding games for the first time in A.D. 274. Not only was this festival not annual, it also cannot be historically documented as having been established on December 25 by Aurelian (cf. Steven HijMans, Sol Invictus, The Winter Solstice, and the Origins of Christmas, Mouseion, Series III, vol. 3, pp. 377-398).
According to inscriptions on candle votives and other ancient works of art, there is a link between You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and Sol Invictus. In some cases it appears the Mithraists believed that Mithras and Sol were two different manifestations of the same god. In others they appear to be two gods united as one. These connections are difficult to understand given our limited knowledge of the Mithraic belief system, but they are important because they help to explain why skeptics claim the birthday of Mithras was celebrated on December 25.
A manuscript known as the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. shows the birth of Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25. Given the fact that the Mithraists equated their god with Sol in one way or another, it is understandable that they may have appropriated the date as their own. The problem for the skeptic is that no evidence exists to suggest that Aurelian was a Mithraist, or that he even had Mithraism in mind when he instituted the feast of Sol Invictus. The connection of Mithra to December 25 is only coincidental.
The deathblow to both the Mithras and Sol Invictus parallels is that the Chronography of 354 is the earliest mention of any pagan god being celebrated on December 25. The celebration of the birth of Christ by Christians is also mentioned on the calendar as having been celebrated on that day, which diminishes the likelihood that the pagan feast came first. At the very least, it negates the claim that it can be proved from the historical record that any December 25 pagan festival predates the Christian tradition.
The Reason for Choosing December 25
Although the date of Christ’s birth is not given to us in Scripture, there is documented evidence that December 25 was already of some significance to Christians prior to A.D. 354. One example can be found in the writings of Hyppolytus of Rome, who explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day:

The reference to Adam can be understood in light of another of Hyppolytus’ writings, the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., where he explains that Jesus was born nine months after the anniversary of Creation. According to his calculations, the world was created on the vernal equinox, March 25, which would mean Jesus was born nine months later, on December 25.
Nineteenth-century liturgical scholar Louis Duchesne explains that “towards the end of the third century the custom of celebrating the birthday of Christ had spread throughout the whole Church, but that it was not observed everywhere on the same day” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., p. 260).
In the West, the birth of Christ was celebrated on December 25, and in the East on January 6.
Duchesne writes “one is inclined to believe that the Roman Church made choice of the 25th of December in order to enter into rivalry with Mithraism. This reason, however, leaves unexplained the choice of the 6th of January” (ibid., p. 261). His solution, therefore, was that the date of Christ’s birth was decided by using as a starting point the same day on which he was believed to have died. This would explain the discrepancies between the celebrations in the East and West.
Given the great aversion on the part of some Christians to anything pagan, the logical conclusion here is that one celebration has nothing to do with the other. In his book, You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. explains:

While these explanations of how December 25 came to be the date of Christmas are all plausible, we know one thing for sure: The evidence that this day held a special significance to Christians predates the proof of a supposed celebration of Sol Invictus or other pagan deities on that day.
That the Christians chose a date so close to the winter solstice is also not proof that this was done to mimic pagan festivals. The various pagan religions all had festivals spanning the calendar. Whatever month the early Christians might have otherwise chosen would still place Christmas near some pagan celebration, and oppositional theorists would still be making the same claims.
The solstice was important to everyone for agricultural reasons in the same way water is important to the survival of human beings, and so we see rituals involving water showing up in various religions. That doesn’t prove that one borrowed the idea or theme from another.

 

[Pewdy]

Ts anjan na mismong answer na nagdedebunked sa christmas myth mo useless yang video mo. Why don't you do a research who compile the Bible and name the bible and who is the first pope of the catholic church para maliwanagan ka po. Peace

 

[Arlertz]

Hehehe, kahit encyclopedia inaamin na hindi nga December 25 ipinanganak si Jesus. Haist.. Wala naman kasing binanggit. Ginagawan parin ng palusot talaga

 

[Gentleman007]

Ts anjan na mismong answer na nagdedebunked sa christmas myth mo useless yang video mo. Why don't you do a research who compile the Bible and name the bible and who is the first pope of the catholic church para maliwanagan ka po. Peace

 

[Pewdy]

Hoax po.yan hahaha research niyo sa net yan tignan niyo po edited hahaha parang hate news kumbaga hahaha

 

[Gentleman007]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[Gentleman007]

Hoax po.yan hahaha research niyo sa net yan tignan niyo po edited hahaha parang hate news kumbaga hahaha

Kahit hoax man yan o totoo. Hindi december 25 pinanganak ang P. Jesus

 

[Gentleman007]

Nasa bible mismo ang malinaw na evidence na hindi december 25 pinanganak si Jesus at kahit pa bali-baliktarin natin ang bible walang inuutos si Jesus at kahit ang kanyang mga apostol na ipagdiwang ang araw ng kanyang kapanganakan. At kahit mga tunay na kristiyano noon ndi nila ito cenelebrate.. yung huwad na mga kristiyano na sumusunod lang sa tradisyon ng tao ang nagsasagawa nito.

 

[hyver]

ty30x

 

[Pewdy]

Nasa bible mismo ang malinaw na evidence na hindi december 25 pinanganak si Jesus at kahit pa bali-baliktarin natin ang bible walang inuutos si Jesus at kahit ang kanyang mga apostol na ipagdiwang ang araw ng kanyang kapanganakan. At kahit mga tunay na kristiyano noon ndi nila ito cenelebrate.. yung huwad na mga kristiyano na sumusunod lang sa tradisyon ng tao ang nagsasagawa nito.

Magresearch ka nalang ts nandyan naman na yung sagot ko eh tsaka ang first church naman is catholic trace mo ang history niya ang first pope is si apostle peter (simon original name pero pinalitan ni jesus Matthew 16:18 na itinilaga ni.jesus bilang head of the church which is the catholic church, research ka nalang.about.jan) nasa history book na yan.at may proof at may proof din na catholic ang nagcompile ng bible at sila din ang naglagay ng mga chapters at titles sa bible like (genesis, exodus etc.) Nasa encyclopedia of the world yan about religion at catholic din ang first christian Church at people nasa history nanaman yan (lintik na history hahaha). Alam mo yung mga.ibang denominations like baptist, Pentecostal, seventh day Adventist ay nagexist dahil nga nagkaroon ng Protestants na (mahaba nanamang reaearch yan kung bakit nagkaroon ng Protestants) parang yung ginagawa kasi ng mga.naninira ng catholic teachings eh inaangkin na tama sila kahit mali.naman mga evidence nila and at the first place di naman sila mag eexist as a church kung wala naman ang catholics na nagcompile ng.bible hahahaha diba para lang silang tangang nagaangkin sa tamang turo ng bible at sasabihing mali ang Catholic eh in reality kaya nagexist at nabigyang buhay ang bible ng dahil din lang.sa mga.catholic and sa sinasabi mo na hindi inuutos ni jesus ung pag celebrate ng Christmas uulitin ko anjan na yung answer ko kung bakit cinecelbrate hahaha parang nung pinanganak ka lang ts may araw at taon pero aminin mo.man oh hindi kaoag sine celebrate ng mga kamag anak mo kaarawan mo.masaya ka at sila at mga taong nakakakilala sayo kasi pinanganak ka oarang ganun na din yun kaya wag kang hypocrito na magsabi na bawal I celebrate ang birthday ni jesus kasi sa ating tao it is not just a celebration , but its the celebration ng mga christians bilang pag alala na binigay ni God si Jesus bilang saviour natin dito sa mundong makasalan at bilang halimbawa na tayoy magung mabuti sa mga nakapaligid sa atin.

PS: if you are against christmas wag ka nalang magcelebrate hahaha just respect the views, opinions and faith of others. Peace yow

 

[Gentleman007]

Magresearch ka nalang ts nandyan naman na yung sagot ko eh tsaka ang first church naman is catholic trace mo ang history niya ang first pope is si apostle peter (simon original name pero pinalitan ni jesus Matthew 16:18 na itinilaga ni.jesus bilang head of the church which is the catholic church, research ka nalang.about.jan) nasa history book na yan.at may proof at may proof din na catholic ang nagcompile ng bible at sila din ang naglagay ng mga chapters at titles sa bible like (genesis, exodus etc.) Nasa encyclopedia of the world yan about religion at catholic din ang first christian Church at people nasa history nanaman yan (lintik na history hahaha). Alam mo yung mga.ibang denominations like baptist, Pentecostal, seventh day Adventist ay nagexist dahil nga nagkaroon ng Protestants na (mahaba nanamang reaearch yan kung bakit nagkaroon ng Protestants) parang yung ginagawa kasi ng mga.naninira ng catholic teachings eh inaangkin na tama sila kahit mali.naman mga evidence nila and at the first place di naman sila mag eexist as a church kung wala naman ang catholics na nagcompile ng.bible hahahaha diba para lang silang tangang nagaangkin sa tamang turo ng bible at sasabihing mali ang Catholic eh in reality kaya nagexist at nabigyang buhay ang bible ng dahil din lang.sa mga.catholic and sa sinasabi mo na hindi inuutos ni jesus ung pag celebrate ng Christmas uulitin ko anjan na yung answer ko kung bakit cinecelbrate hahaha parang nung pinanganak ka lang ts may araw at taon pero aminin mo.man oh hindi kaoag sine celebrate ng mga kamag anak mo kaarawan mo.masaya ka at sila at mga taong nakakakilala sayo kasi pinanganak ka oarang ganun na din yun kaya wag kang hypocrito na magsabi na bawal I celebrate ang birthday ni jesus kasi sa ating tao it is not just a celebration , but its the celebration ng mga christians bilang pag alala na binigay ni God si Jesus bilang saviour natin dito sa mundong makasalan at bilang halimbawa na tayoy magung mabuti sa mga nakapaligid sa atin.

PS: if you are against christmas wag ka nalang magcelebrate hahaha just respect the views, opinions and faith of others. Peace yow

Bukas ba isip mo? Kasi kung bukas, kaya kong patunayan sayo mula sa bible na inaangkin nyong compile nyo na wala pa yang katoliko meron ng isang tunay na relihiyon na katanggap tanggap sa Diyos.

 

[Pewdy]

láρág mo proof mo ts. Kung walang catholic walang bible walang nga denominations like inc, baotist Jehovah's witness etc. Ito nanaman bang sinasabi ko hahaha nahurt ata ego mo sa nabasa mo eh

 

[Gentleman007]

Magresearch ka nalang ts nandyan naman na yung sagot ko eh tsaka ang first church naman is catholic trace mo ang history niya ang first pope is si apostle peter (simon original name pero pinalitan ni jesus Matthew 16:18 na itinilaga ni.jesus bilang head of the church which is the catholic church, research ka nalang.about.jan) nasa history book na yan.at may proof at may proof din na catholic ang nagcompile ng bible at sila din ang naglagay ng mga chapters at titles sa bible like (genesis, exodus etc.) Nasa encyclopedia of the world yan about religion at catholic din ang first christian Church at people nasa history nanaman yan (lintik na history hahaha). Alam mo yung mga.ibang denominations like baptist, Pentecostal, seventh day Adventist ay nagexist dahil nga nagkaroon ng Protestants na (mahaba nanamang reaearch yan kung bakit nagkaroon ng Protestants) parang yung ginagawa kasi ng mga.naninira ng catholic teachings eh inaangkin na tama sila kahit mali.naman mga evidence nila and at the first place di naman sila mag eexist as a church kung wala naman ang catholics na nagcompile ng.bible hahahaha diba para lang silang tangang nagaangkin sa tamang turo ng bible at sasabihing mali ang Catholic eh in reality kaya nagexist at nabigyang buhay ang bible ng dahil din lang.sa mga.catholic and sa sinasabi mo na hindi inuutos ni jesus ung pag celebrate ng Christmas uulitin ko anjan na yung answer ko kung bakit cinecelbrate hahaha parang nung pinanganak ka lang ts may araw at taon pero aminin mo.man oh hindi kaoag sine celebrate ng mga kamag anak mo kaarawan mo.masaya ka at sila at mga taong nakakakilala sayo kasi pinanganak ka oarang ganun na din yun kaya wag kang hypocrito na magsabi na bawal I celebrate ang birthday ni jesus kasi sa ating tao it is not just a celebration , but its the celebration ng mga christians bilang pag alala na binigay ni God si Jesus bilang saviour natin dito sa mundong makasalan at bilang halimbawa na tayoy magung mabuti sa mga nakapaligid sa atin.

PS: if you are against christmas wag ka nalang magcelebrate hahaha just respect the views, opinions and faith of others. Peace yow

Was Peter the First Pope?

“Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, S.J., has been elected as Supreme Pontiff, the 265th successor of Peter.”—VATICAN INFORMATION SERVICE, VATICAN CITY, MARCH 13, 2013.

“The bishop of Rome has the right of primacy above the universal Church, since he is the successor of Saint Peter, who received such prerogative from Jesus Christ.”—THE PRIMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES, 1903, BY VINCENT ERMONI.

“If, then, anyone shall say . . . that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema [that is, be declared a heretic].”—THE FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, JULY 18, 1870.

TO MILLIONS of Catholics around the world, the 1870 decree of the first Vatican Council is a dogma of the church, a binding teaching. However, the question must be asked, Is it a Scriptural teaching? In addition, is Pope Francis really a successor of the apostle Peter? And was Peter the first pope?

“UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH”

The 1870 Vatican Council’s decree was based primarily on its interpretation of Matthew 16:16-19 and John 21:15-17. The conversations between Jesus and Peter that we read in these passages as well as other Bible accounts show that the apostle Peter had an important role in the history of early Christianity. In fact, the first time they met, Jesus predicted that Peter would display rocklike qualities in his life. (John 1:42) But did Christ give Peter primacy?

At Matthew 16:17, 18, we find Jesus’ words to Peter: “I say to you, you are Peter [whose name means “A Piece of Rock”], and upon this rock I will build my church.”* Was Jesus saying that his “church,” or congregation, would be built upon Peter, a man? Was Peter to be the head of all other followers of Jesus? How did the other apostles present at that conversation understand Jesus’ words? The Gospels reveal that later, on a number of occasions, they argued about who was the greatest among them. (Matthew 20:20-27; Mark 9:33-35;Luke 22:24-26) If Jesus had already given Peter primacy, or superiority, could there have been any question as to who was the greatest among the apostles?

How did Peter himself understand Jesus’ words? Growing up an Israelite, Peter would have been familiar with various Hebrew prophecies speaking of a “stone” or a “cornerstone.” (Isaiah 8:13, 14;28:16; Zechariah 3:9) When he quoted one of them in a letter to his fellow believers, Peter explained that the prophesied “cornerstone” was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah. Peter used the Greek term pe’tra (the same word found in Jesus’ statement at Matthew 16:18) for Christ alone.—1 Peter 2:4-8.

The apostle Paul was another faithful follower of Jesus. Did Paul believe that Jesus had given Peter primacy? Acknowledging Peter’s position in the early Christian congregation, Paul wrote that Peter was among those “reputed to be pillars.” For Paul, there was more than just one ‘pillar.’ (Galatians 2:9) Moreover, if Peter had been appointed by Jesus as the head of the congregation, how could he simply be reputed, that is to say, supposed or thought by his fellow believers, to be a pillar?

When writing regarding certain inconsistencies in the way Peter treated people, Paul respectfully but frankly stated: “I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.” (Galatians 2:11-14) Paul did not think that Christ had built his church, or congregation, upon Peter or any other imperfect man. On the contrary, he believed that the congregation was built on Jesus Christ as the foundation. For Paul, “the rock was the Christ.”—1 Corinthians 3:9-11; 10:4.

“YOU ARE PETER . . .”

So how are we to understand the words: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”? To understand an excerpt correctly, we need to read its context. What were Jesus and Peter speaking about? Jesus had just asked his disciples: “Who do you say that I am?” Without hesitation, Peter answered: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” With that, Jesus commended Peter and then added that he would build his “church,” or congregation, on an even more solid “rock,” the one in whom Peter had just expressed faith—Jesus himself.—Matthew 16:15-18.

How are we to understand Jesus’ words: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”?

Consistent with this, many of the “Church Fathers” wrote that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Christ. For example, Augustine in the fifth century wrote: “The Lord said: ‘On this rock-mass I will build my Church,’ because Peter had told him: ‘You are the Christ the Son of the living God.’ It is therefore on this rock-mass, that you confessed, that I will build my Church.” Augustine repeatedly stated that “the Rock (Petra) was Christ.”

Augustine and others would be considered heretics if judged according to current Catholic doctrine. In fact, according to Swiss theologian Ulrich Luz, the consensus of opinion on this subject among Bible scholars today would have been condemned by the 1870 Vatican Council as heresy.

THE POPE—PETER’S SUCCESSOR?

The title “pope” was unknown to the apostle Peter. In fact, until the ninth century, many non-Roman bishops applied the title to themselves. Even so, the term was rarely applied as an official title until the late 11th century. Moreover, no early Christian thought that a primacy supposedly given to Peter had been transmitted to any successors. Hence, German scholar Martin Hengel concluded that there is “no demonstrable historical and theological way to arrive at what later became papal ‘primacy.’”

In conclusion: Was Peter the first pope? Did he have any successors? Is the Catholic dogma of papal primacy Scripturally valid? The only correct answer to each question is a simple no. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Jesus unquestionably did build his church, his true congregation, upon himself. (Ephesians 2:20)

 

[Pewdy]

Question:
who put together the bible and what year
Answer:
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon—or list of books—of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.

Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.

The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).


Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

 

[Gentleman007]

Question:
who put together the bible and what year
Answer:
The Old Testament books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the New Testament books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. But the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, illustrating that it was the Catholic Church who determined the canon—or list of books—of the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Bible is not a not a self-canonizing collection of books, as there is no table of contents included in any of the books.

Although the New Testament canon was not determined until the late 300s, books the Church deemed sacred were early on proclaimed at Mass, and read and preached about otherwise. Early Christian writings outnumbered the 27 books that would become the canon of the New Testament. The shepherds of the Church, by a process of spiritual discernment and investigation into the liturgical traditions of the Church spread throughout the world, had to draw clear lines of distinction between books that are truly inspired by God and originated in the apostolic period, and those which only claimed to have these qualities.

The process culminated in 382 as the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442).


Finally, the ecumenical Council of Trent solemnly defined this same canon in 1546, after it came under attack by the first Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther.

THE BIBLE A CATHOLIC BOOK?

Does the claim that the Catholic Church made the Bible fit the facts? In answering that question let us first note that the Bible is God’s Word. That being so, then ever since Moses completed the Pentateuch (the five books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) God’s Word has been available to his servants. As other inspired servants wrote it grew and grew so that by the time Malachi penned his prophecy God’s Word, the Bible, had grown to 39 books. These 39 books constituted the sacred Scriptures that Jesus and his disciples used and which they encouraged others to study.—John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 2:15; 3:15-17.

With the writing of the accounts of Jesus’ life by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the letters of Paul, Peter, James, Jude, and John and the Acts of the apostles and Revelation (or the Apocalypse), God’s Word grew to 66 books. As these were written down and circulated among the early Christians they became recognized as part of the Bible. (2 Pet. 3:15, 16) The last of these writings, John’s three letters and his Gospel, were completed about A.D. 98. Shortly thereafter began the compiling of these writings, and there is evidence to indicate that as early as A.D. 170 the canon or catalogue of the Bible we have today was recognized. Both Origen and Eusebius list these same books, and of ten early catalogues extant six likewise give the same list as is recognized today, three others omitting Revelation and one omitting both Hebrews and Revelation. In view of these facts, which show that the canon of the Bible was settled among the Christians in the second and early third centuries after Christ, can the Catholic Church claim to have made the Bible, simply because some 150 to 200 years later her Council of Carthage announced what writings she considered canonical?

If the Catholic Church made the Bible, is it not strange that she failed to include any word about the assumption of Mary, her immaculate conception and about the efficacy of praying to her; about the veneration of relics, images and saints; about the use of holy water; about the ceremony of the mass; about a pope’s being the vicar of Christ; about monsignors, archbishops and cardinals; about purgatory; about a celibate clergy; about not eating meat on Friday or during Lent; about making novenas; about infant baptism; etc.? Is not the fact that the Bible is silent on all these outstanding points of the Catholic religion strong circumstantial evidence that the CatholicChurch did not make the Bible? that it is not a Catholic book?

Who made the Bible is very clear from its own pages. God is its author. “Thy word is a lamp to my feet.” “The spirit of the Lord hath spoken by me: and his word by my tongue.” “Thy word is truth.” “For the word of God is living and effectual.” “The holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”—Douay Version at 2 Ki. 23:2; Ps. 118:105; John 17:17; Heb. 4:12; 2 Pet. 1:21.

CATHOLIC CHURCH PRESERVE THE BIBLE?

The Catholic Church further states: “There can be no doubt that the world must thank the Catholic Church for the Bible—if only for the 1,500 years which elapsed before the first Reformers appeared on the scene. Who spanned the gulf? We ask that the monks who copied for centuries, . . . be given their due. But for them we would have no Bible.” Does this claim fit the facts? Let us see.

The facts are that not one of the oldest, most reliable and most valuable manuscripts of the Bible was found in territories under Catholic domination. Even her prized Vatican manuscript 1209 has been in her possession only since the fifteenth century. And this she hid away, making it available to the public only when another great manuscript, the Sinaiticus, bid fair to eclipse it. So if the monks had done no copying at all during the Dark and Middle Ages we would still have the best manuscripts. They copied none of the good ones.

Bible copying may have been largely limited to the monks, but that was primarily due to the Catholic Church’s keeping the Bible in a dead language. When Wycliffe translated the Bible into English his followers made many, many copies, and that without the assistance of monks. And as for giving these monks any credit, they dared to take liberties with the inspired text. That is why we have in the King James and the Douay versions some spurious passages, such as 1 John 5:7, to mention one of the most flagrant examples.

Not only can no credit go to the Catholic Church for preserving the Bible but the facts of history show that she has been the chief destroyer of the Bible. Copies of Wycliffe’s Bible were hunted out by her from one end of England to the other and then destroyed. Tyndale had to print his “New Testament” on the continent of Europe, for he could not do so in Catholic England. Although he published 18,000 of them and had them smuggled into England, they were hunted down and destroyed so efficiently that only seventeen copies are known to survive today.

Endeavoring to justify such Bible-burning Our Sunday Visitor, February 10, 1952, states that such “was the burning of versions which were proved to be faulty, and therefore had no right to pass as ‘the word of God’”. But was there such a great difference between the CatholicBible and the translations of the Reformers as to justify the crusade which destroyed not only Bibles but also Bible translators, publishers and distributors? On this point note what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say regarding the English Challoner-Douay Version:

“To call it any longer the Douay or Rheimish version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and modified until scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published. . . . In nearly every case Challoner’s changes took the form of approximating to the Authorized Version.” So in improving the Catholic version it became more like the Protestant King James version! Recent instances of this could be cited from both the new American Catholic versions of the book of the Psalms and Genesis and Msgr. Knox’s version.

No, the claim that the Catholic Church burned Bibles because of their being faulty translations does not fit the facts. There must have been some other motives. What these were we will let the reader judge. Incidentally, note that such Bible-burnings are not a thing of the distant past. Many Bibles were publicly burned on May 27, 1923, in Rome, in homage of the ****** Mary, and in the New York Times, March 6, 1952, appeared an article under the following headings: “Protestant Cleric Is Beaten in Spain. Youths Invade Chapel and Set Fire to Bibles, Pews and Hymnals.”