This podcast episode analyzes Gerald Flurry's controversial views on Christmas. Gerald is the leader of the Philadelphia Church of God. Flurry, rooted in Armstrongism, argues that Christmas is inherently pagan due to its traditions' origins, claiming they stem from the worship of Babylonian deities. He asserts that celebrating Christmas is unchristian and leads to spiritual harm, citing the secularization of the holiday and potential childhood disillusionment. However, the podcast counters these claims by presenting historical evidence showing that many Christmas traditions, like the Christmas tree, have Christian roots or were adapted from other biblical practices, and that the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid such celebrations. Ultimately, the podcast encourages critical thinking and independent evaluation of Flurry's extreme perspective. Ai-COG
3 comments:
The claim 25 December has a pagan origin is an old myth recycled by Flurry.
The theory was based on works such as Hislop and others of his ilk who were most desirous of painting the Catholic Church as Babylon of Revelation.
The pagan theory can be shown to be a very weak argument with a bit of research into the subject.
As an example:
Dr David Gwynn, lecturer in ancient and late antique history at Royal Holloway, University of London, states: ''The majority of modern scholars would be reluctant to accept any close connection between the Saturnalia and the emergence of the Christian Christmas.’
Fact of the matter is as one researches it becomes apparent the date of Christmas may derive from concepts in Judaism that link the time of the deaths of prophets being linked to their conception or birth. From this, early ecclesiastical number-crunchers extrapolated that the nine months of Mary’s pregnancy following the Annunciation on March 25th would produce a December 25th date for the birth of Christ.
Another historian suggests that Dec 25 is at least consistent with what Luke says. Jesus was conceived 6 months after John The Baptist who was conceived shortly after mid-September, as that - Luke tells us — happened after Zechariah returned from his annual 2-week stint at the Temple, and being of the division of Abijah, that means his duty there was in late August-mid September (late Summer). So, based on that, Jesus could have been conceived in March or April, and born in December or January. This seems to conform to above and warrants consideration.
There is a lot of information and it shows as one reads more the shallowness of the G G Rupert/H W Armstrong/J Flurry/many offshoots/Jehovah Witnesses/Mormon/etc etc pagan argument.
Preachers like Flurry use the these pagan conspiracy theories (falsely extended to Easter as well) to Muddy - and to manipulate people into following their own false dogma.
Didn't God tell Moses to establish a priesthood, complete with sacrifices, priestly garments, sacrifices, etc.? Weren't these things commonly found among pagan religions? Didn't God take what the people were familiar with and attach to them new meaning? Isn't that what the church did when they "baptized" pagan practices into the church?
I still wonder if the 6th month was not only of Elisabeth's pregnancy but also the 6th month of the calendar. In Luke 1:26 a literal translation is ........in the month the sixth......why two "the"s?
Post a Comment