A friend of mine drew my attention to a Jonathan Cahn article about the "true" date of Christmas.
People like him don't even grasp the issue. The traditional date to celebrate the birth of Christmas does't have to be the actual date of his birth.
Since we don't know his actual DOB, if we're going to celebrate his birth, the day or date will be conventional. It's about the date we celebrate his birth, not the date of his birth. Christmas is when we commemorate his birth, not when he was born. That's a simple distinction. The timing concerns something we do to honor his birth, not something that happened to him.
Same thing with Easter. The date of Easter (a movable feast) isn't based on determining the date of the Resurrection. These are liturgical dates.
Commemoration is an event, and what you commemorate is an event. The timing of the former needn't match the timing of the latter. What you celebrate and when you celebrate are two different things.
Christmas commemorates his birth, not the day of his birth. A celebration of his birth, not his birthdate.
It's not the day that's significant, but the person. Not when he was born, but who was born.
Christmas commemorates his birth, not the day of his birth. A celebration of his birth, not his birthdate.
It's not the day that's significant, but the person. Not when he was born, but who was born.
Now, there are Puritans who object to holidays in principle. But that's a different argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment