Friday, December 11, 2009

The True Meaning of Christmas

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/86/3251_In_the_Beginning_Was_the_Word

From the Series: The Gospel of John
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/BySeries/86/

The True Meaning of Christmas: Jesus Christ is the eternal word of God; the eternal Son of God; He existed from all eternity; He became flesh and dwelt among us humans; in order to live and die and save us from our sins. He rose from the dead and proved He is Lord and God.

We are to preach this gospel to all nations. Below is a translation of the above paragraph, an example of one of those language groups, Farsi. (The language of Iran, about half of Afghanistan, and Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan; parts of the old Persian Empire.)

John Piper has a great series of preaching in the gospel of John going on right now. Check it out.

معنی واقعی عید میلاد مسیح : عیسی مسیح کلمه ازلی خدا و پسر ازلی خدا بود، از ازل وجود داشت، عیسی بشر شد، جسم شد، انسان شد و در میان ما انسانها ساکن گردید، تا زندگی کرد و برای گناهان ما مرد. اوآمد تا ما را از گناهان ما تجات بدهد! او از مردگان رستاخیز کرد و ثابت کرد که او خداوند و خدا ست.

جان پایپر سری موعظه های خوبی راجع به انجیل یوحنا دراد. به آن نگاه کنید
.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:1
از ازل کلمه بود، کلمه با خدا بود، و کلمه خود خدا بود.
یوحنا 1:1


"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . " John 1:14a

و کلمه انسان شد، و در میان ما ساکن گردید . . . یوحنا 14:1

12 comments:

CathApol said...

For another perspective on the "true meaning of Christmas" I would encourage you to see:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/12/true-meaning-of-christmas.html

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Burk Braun said...

Sorry, Christmas was a blatant copying of Saturnalia, and is gradually reverting to Saturnalia once again. Blessings to all!

Ken said...

Thanks Scott,

This article also talks about the date of the Christmas season:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v

While we can agree with each other that most scholars, as this article also shows, that Jesus was probably not born on Dec. 25; but born in Sept. / Oct.; we do not agree on the Roman Catholic notions of "sacrifice of the mass" nor the transubstantiation dogma; even though we Protestants still use the English word for "Christmas" which ending comes from the Latin, "mass" - from "the missal" - the sending forth of the people with the message of Christ into the world.

Christ died once for all, never to be repeated - He is the final sacrifice (Romans 6:10; I Peter 3:18; Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 9:26-28; 10:10-18), never to be "re-presented" either on an unbloody altar, and final full substitutionary atonement for His people from all nations. (Matthew 1:21; Revelation 5:9; I John 4:10; John 1:29; Romans 3:25-26)

Ken said...

Burk,
I agree with Scott and with William Tighe, that just as Mithraism developed after it was adopted from the Persians by way of the Roman military and brought it to the Roman Empire and it changed in order to compete with Christianity, so also did the other pagan holidays, even though they all had generally celebrations on around Dec. 17-25; Dec. 21 (Winter Solstice) and around that time. Iranians still have "Shab Yalda" that does back to before Mithraism. (Babylonian and Persian ancient religions even before Zoroastrianism.)

My point was to just encourage listening and watching John Piper's series on John, about the message of the gospels (John chapter 1, Matthew 1-2; Luke 1-2) and that we celebrate at this time as a tradition, and the meaning of it; and that this message is to be proclaimed to the nations; not about the exact date in history so much.

CathApol said...

Burk,
You may think so, but that's not how it began. That's what many modernists/revisionists would say and it's been said so much it is taken as true by many. I too used to think we adopted pagan seasons so that the Christians celebrated at the same time as the pagans making it easier to convert the pagans - I was surprised by the truth too.

Ken,
I fully understand the Protestant lack of agreement with the Sacrifice of the Mass - however, those ARE the roots of Protestantism as well seeing as how it has been part of Christianity for the entire nearly 2000 years of Christianity. Again, understanding you disagree, when do you think such sacrifices began? That's not really the point of this thread - so perhaps we move on. My point was, in part, that Christianity did not base Christ Mass upon Saturnalia, but rather upon Easter - which had to do with the Jewish Passover, not any pagan system at all. It just so happens that having the conception be on March 25th equates to His birth being on December 25th in the Gregorian calendar.

Oh, and one more thing, "Mass" and "missal" stem from a similar root, which literally means "sent out" as in at the end of the Mass - where the priest says "Go, the Mass is ended," which in the Latin Mass is "Ite missa est." I believe we're pretty much in agreement on that one.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

James Swan said...

For another perspective on the "true meaning of Christmas" I would encourage you to see:

To Ken, Rho, and Carrie:

I forgot to inform you we're now the official sponsor and advertising agency for Scott Windsor Enterprises.

Everytime you post something, I've agreed to let Scott advertise his "minisitry". We signed the contract recently over at the Arby's while eating burgers and drinking celebratory diet pepsi.

Don't worry, the contract says Scott will forward you a percentage of his PayPal donations.

I was hoping to avoid the 3 of you "Union-izing" as you threatened to do over our last contract terms.

Rhology said...

I was hoping to avoid the 3 of you "Union-izing" as you threatened to do over our last contract terms.

Fat chance.


And I love how Windsor offers "another perspective", when there's absolutely nothing in the OP that would offend Romanist sensibilities (which are admittedly fragile).

CathApol said...

Mr. Swan,
Thank you for the humor. Truth be known (and you know how to check it) I get relatively few hits from this blog. I do get some, I admit and even expect - but far more come from search engines and other direct hits. I believe the slight increase in traffic to my blog is more directly related to my increased blogging activities - which has included, but is not limited to, visits to this blog.

Alan,
Your comment about not offending "Romanist" (you just can't stop using that slur, can you?) sensibilities, what do you expect? I, as a Catholic am going to deliberately post things offensive to Catholics? Knock, knock, anyone home? That being said, my comment directed to the "die-hard Traditionalists" may not be too well received by all of them - and I speak as a Traditionalist myself.

May God richly bless you this Advent season and while we anticipate the coming of our Lord and Savior, may your reflections and meditations on Him bring you closer to Him.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

I, as a Catholic am going to deliberately post things offensive to Catholics?

I'm sorry to say I have no idea what you mean here, nor how it's relevant.

CathApol said...

>> sw: I, as a Catholic am going
>> to deliberately post things
>> offensive to Catholics?
>
> AR: I'm sorry to say I have no
> idea what you mean here, nor how
> it's relevant.

sw: I guess you're having trouble following your own postings, from just a couple comments earlier, the one I was directly responding to, you said:

>>> AR: And I love how Windsor
>>> offers "another perspective",
>>> when there's absolutely
>>> nothing in the OP that would
>>> offend Romanist sensibilities
>>> (which are admittedly fragile).

sw: Why in the world would I be trying to post something on my Catholic blog which would "offend" other (allegedly fragile) Catholics? Can you see the connection yet?

sw: The REAL point here, which you appear to be attempting to distract from - is the TRUE MEANING OF CHRIST MASS.

Scott<<<
CathApol Blog

Rhology said...

No I can't see the connection b/c it's totally irrelevant to what I said.

Ken said...

Some writers in the Early church took the Malachi 1:11 passage about sacrifices being offered among all the nations too far.

Some things about this passage they got right.

But the NT does not quote the Malachi passage as fulfilled in the Eucharist or Lord's Supper.

Hebrews 13:15-16, that we offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving for the once for all sacrifice of Christ takes precedence over what some non-canonical writers said decades and centuries later.

William Webster has a good chapter (from the Church of Rome at the Bar of History) on this and the early church and the Eucharist. I realize you won't like it and you will disagree with it, nevertheless, here it is:

http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html