Keeping Santa in Christmas but dropping Jesus

Christians typically every year take up the cause of keeping Christ in Christmas.  The American Atheists organization has taking up the cause of keeping Santa in Christmas and dropping Jesus.  Here is a sign they put up in Times Square:

atheist christmas billboard

Steadfast Lutherans » Keep the Merry…and the Myth.

Similarly, Christians regularly decry the commercialization of Christmas.  Ayn Rand,  conservatives’ favorite atheist, says commercialization is the best thing about it.  From Michael Schmitz:

 

“The best aspect of Christmas is the aspect usually decried by the mystics: the fact that Christmas has been commercialized. The gift-buying . . . stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the street decorations put up by department stores and other institutions—the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors—provide the city with a spectacular display, which only ‘commercial greed’ could afford to give us. One would have to be terribly depressed to resist the wonderful gaiety of that spectacle.”

-Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Calendar, December 1976

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Ray

    Atheists are getting desperate.

    If that sign is in Times Square, they’re preaching to the choir.

  • Ray

    Atheists are getting desperate.

    If that sign is in Times Square, they’re preaching to the choir.

  • Tom Hering

    I immediately noticed the clever dishonesty of the Times Square ad. A secular Christmas image of a jolly Santa is contrasted with a religious Good Friday image of the crucified Christ, because the latter involves suffering and death. (Oh those downbeat Christians!) An honest ad would have used Christmas subjects for both images. Like a Santa and a nativity. But then, a nativity isn’t just merry, it’s joy to the world. And that wouldn’t exactly help a piece of atheist propaganda.

  • Tom Hering

    I immediately noticed the clever dishonesty of the Times Square ad. A secular Christmas image of a jolly Santa is contrasted with a religious Good Friday image of the crucified Christ, because the latter involves suffering and death. (Oh those downbeat Christians!) An honest ad would have used Christmas subjects for both images. Like a Santa and a nativity. But then, a nativity isn’t just merry, it’s joy to the world. And that wouldn’t exactly help a piece of atheist propaganda.

  • Dan Kempin

    Is it just me, or is that sign ironic?

    (“Let’s oppose that childish myth of Jesus with some solid fact. Hey, I know what would be perfect . . .”)

  • Dan Kempin

    Is it just me, or is that sign ironic?

    (“Let’s oppose that childish myth of Jesus with some solid fact. Hey, I know what would be perfect . . .”)

  • Ray

    Dan @3: But Santa *is* real. I saw him at Macy’s.

  • Ray

    Dan @3: But Santa *is* real. I saw him at Macy’s.

  • Pete

    Dan (@3)

    The same thing occurred to me. The theology of the cross would dictate that the atheists’ poster is accurate – they merely got their captions switched.

  • Pete

    Dan (@3)

    The same thing occurred to me. The theology of the cross would dictate that the atheists’ poster is accurate – they merely got their captions switched.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    It would seem that there are atheists, and then there are anti-theists. The psychology of the situation is quite interesting.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    It would seem that there are atheists, and then there are anti-theists. The psychology of the situation is quite interesting.

  • Michael B.

    The picture depicts Jesus of Nazareth being crucified. Every serious historian agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who was crucified. That’s hardly a myth.

    But besides the point, decorations such as nativity scenes as part of the American and Western culture, despite them being religious in nature. One can easily support these decorations without believing in them, in the same sense that we don’t believe in Santa and flying reindeer, but would be offended if people wanted to remove them from Christmas. To my knowledge, Richard Dawkins has a Christmas tree and has no problem with Christmas decorations depicting Jesus and the Virgin Birth.

  • Michael B.

    The picture depicts Jesus of Nazareth being crucified. Every serious historian agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who was crucified. That’s hardly a myth.

    But besides the point, decorations such as nativity scenes as part of the American and Western culture, despite them being religious in nature. One can easily support these decorations without believing in them, in the same sense that we don’t believe in Santa and flying reindeer, but would be offended if people wanted to remove them from Christmas. To my knowledge, Richard Dawkins has a Christmas tree and has no problem with Christmas decorations depicting Jesus and the Virgin Birth.

  • mikeb

    My Facebook feed is full of reminders to keep “Christ in Christmas” but not a single one that suggests we should keep the “Mass in Christmas.” Nay, the churches in my community, the buckle of the Bible belt, will mostly be empty following services and Dec. 23 until the following Sunday. And so I’m not surprised that one would suggest He be removed from the celebration altogether. I’m not sure He’d be too happy with how we all act during the season of giving* anyway.

    *By giving of course I mean coveting.

  • mikeb

    My Facebook feed is full of reminders to keep “Christ in Christmas” but not a single one that suggests we should keep the “Mass in Christmas.” Nay, the churches in my community, the buckle of the Bible belt, will mostly be empty following services and Dec. 23 until the following Sunday. And so I’m not surprised that one would suggest He be removed from the celebration altogether. I’m not sure He’d be too happy with how we all act during the season of giving* anyway.

    *By giving of course I mean coveting.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    the churches in my community, the buckle of the Bible belt, will mostly be empty following services and Dec. 23 until the following Sunday.

    Isn’t the massless Christmas a Puritan thing?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    the churches in my community, the buckle of the Bible belt, will mostly be empty following services and Dec. 23 until the following Sunday.

    Isn’t the massless Christmas a Puritan thing?

  • larry

    My thoughts exactly Dan.

    KK, you bring a good point. There are atheist who are against a thing, namely theism and primarily Christian ONLY theism. The point is they are against a thing they think is not real. Which is ironic. Why “push” against something you think is thin air. Because you don’t find aleprechaunist or awillowhisps.

    Then a friend pastor I know was telling me of some Chinese christian friends of theirs, Americans now. They use to not be Christians. He asked them what they were before, assuming either Buddhist or atheist (in the sense we normally think). He said, nothing. My friend asked, you mean atheist or agnostic? He replied explicitly, “No, I mean nothing”. They in the rural aspects of China.

    I’d never considered a just plain “nothingness”. But it does make sense. Kind of a “pure” secularist if you will. Not an “a”theist, but a pure secularist if you will.

  • larry

    My thoughts exactly Dan.

    KK, you bring a good point. There are atheist who are against a thing, namely theism and primarily Christian ONLY theism. The point is they are against a thing they think is not real. Which is ironic. Why “push” against something you think is thin air. Because you don’t find aleprechaunist or awillowhisps.

    Then a friend pastor I know was telling me of some Chinese christian friends of theirs, Americans now. They use to not be Christians. He asked them what they were before, assuming either Buddhist or atheist (in the sense we normally think). He said, nothing. My friend asked, you mean atheist or agnostic? He replied explicitly, “No, I mean nothing”. They in the rural aspects of China.

    I’d never considered a just plain “nothingness”. But it does make sense. Kind of a “pure” secularist if you will. Not an “a”theist, but a pure secularist if you will.

  • edith corbin

    Where the Athiest and the Catholics have it wrong… Jesus is no longer suffering on the cross. He is alive and well , vicariously sitting at the Father’s right hand praying for all of us… He is not willing that anyone perish but that all be saved. He will be everyone’s judge especially those who know his story and willfully try to hide it.

  • edith corbin

    Where the Athiest and the Catholics have it wrong… Jesus is no longer suffering on the cross. He is alive and well , vicariously sitting at the Father’s right hand praying for all of us… He is not willing that anyone perish but that all be saved. He will be everyone’s judge especially those who know his story and willfully try to hide it.

  • helen

    Michael B @ 7
    The picture depicts Jesus of Nazareth being crucified. Every serious historian agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who was crucified. That’s hardly a myth.

    You are forgetting who the ACLU is.
    The Jews have been writing falsehoods about Jesus Christ from the first century down to this day.
    I read them in the journals which cross my desk for binding (Jewish and muslim).

    1. Mary wasn’t a virgin; she was a soldier’s whore
    2. Jesus was illegitimate and wasn’t G-D…. their main point; all else is window dressing.
    3. Christ didn’t die on the cross (or if he did, he definitely didn’t resurrect himself)
    Someone stole the body and pretended all the rest.

    Someone wrote that one of the better proofs that Jesus Christ existed and was all He said He was, is the Jewish determination to deny it all, from the day of Easter until now.

  • helen

    Michael B @ 7
    The picture depicts Jesus of Nazareth being crucified. Every serious historian agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person who was crucified. That’s hardly a myth.

    You are forgetting who the ACLU is.
    The Jews have been writing falsehoods about Jesus Christ from the first century down to this day.
    I read them in the journals which cross my desk for binding (Jewish and muslim).

    1. Mary wasn’t a virgin; she was a soldier’s whore
    2. Jesus was illegitimate and wasn’t G-D…. their main point; all else is window dressing.
    3. Christ didn’t die on the cross (or if he did, he definitely didn’t resurrect himself)
    Someone stole the body and pretended all the rest.

    Someone wrote that one of the better proofs that Jesus Christ existed and was all He said He was, is the Jewish determination to deny it all, from the day of Easter until now.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Sure, sure, the atheists are ridiculous, given to attention-seeking wastes of money, blah blah blah. This isn’t an ad for atheism qua atheism, it’s an ad to convince atheists to give money to American Atheists.

    Seriously, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has been running ads in Portland lately (on the “This is what an atheist” looks like), and, you know what? Putting up pro-atheist billboards in inner Southeast Portland is like putting up pro-Baptist billboards in suburban Atlanta. Preaching to the choir, and then some. Heck, the FFRF held its last national convention in Portland! They definitely aren’t trying to make any theists change their minds!

    No, the whole point (almost certainly of the latter; quite likely of the former) is to say, “Hey, unaffiliated atheists, look at this billboard! You like it, don’t you? If you give money to us, we’ll put up more like it! So give us money!”

    As such, it’s a self-perpetuating system. But it probably isn’t actually convincing anybody. Fools, money, etc.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Sure, sure, the atheists are ridiculous, given to attention-seeking wastes of money, blah blah blah. This isn’t an ad for atheism qua atheism, it’s an ad to convince atheists to give money to American Atheists.

    Seriously, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has been running ads in Portland lately (on the “This is what an atheist” looks like), and, you know what? Putting up pro-atheist billboards in inner Southeast Portland is like putting up pro-Baptist billboards in suburban Atlanta. Preaching to the choir, and then some. Heck, the FFRF held its last national convention in Portland! They definitely aren’t trying to make any theists change their minds!

    No, the whole point (almost certainly of the latter; quite likely of the former) is to say, “Hey, unaffiliated atheists, look at this billboard! You like it, don’t you? If you give money to us, we’ll put up more like it! So give us money!”

    As such, it’s a self-perpetuating system. But it probably isn’t actually convincing anybody. Fools, money, etc.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Oh, and nice job on the logo there, American Atheists! Is that a Bohr model of the atom? How very scientific of you!

    (Psst, nobody tell the would-be pro-science atheists, but there’s this thing called the quantum mechanical model of the atom that’s been around for, I don’t know, half a century now. Might wanna look into that, atheists. Since you’re so smart and all that.)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Oh, and nice job on the logo there, American Atheists! Is that a Bohr model of the atom? How very scientific of you!

    (Psst, nobody tell the would-be pro-science atheists, but there’s this thing called the quantum mechanical model of the atom that’s been around for, I don’t know, half a century now. Might wanna look into that, atheists. Since you’re so smart and all that.)

  • Grace

    Those who don’t believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son and then prescribe “dropping Jesus” aren’t the issue. They are folk who have chosen a path, alternative to the Saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, it’s been going on for centuries, nothings changed –

    Why keep concerning yourself with their drivel?

      14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

      15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

      16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    Matthew 10

  • Grace

    Those who don’t believe that Jesus Christ is God the Son and then prescribe “dropping Jesus” aren’t the issue. They are folk who have chosen a path, alternative to the Saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, it’s been going on for centuries, nothings changed –

    Why keep concerning yourself with their drivel?

      14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

      15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

      16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    Matthew 10

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Finally, I hate to say it, but Rand has a point.

    At this point, most American Christians could more easily identify with a holiday in which you put up a shiny, decorated tree, give lots of gaily wrapped presents, deck the house with lights, bake lots of special treats — oh, and pay nominal homage to the birth of Christ — than they could with a holiday that had no tree, no gifts, no lights, and no feasts, but a focus on the Incarnation.

    I’m not trying to encourage pietism here, but as a Christian who has so far failed to get into “the Christmas spirit” (read: lights, tree, gifts) with his kids, I definitely feel like a freak this time of year, even if we’re in no way holding back on the actual Christological themes.

    I mean, come on, American Christians like to talk a good game about “keeping Christ in Christmas”, but at the end of the day, Jesus often just serves as a convenient excuse for all these cultural trappings that are, yes, fun and enjoyable. Who doesn’t love lights, presents, and cookies? I do, but that’s got diddly to do with the Incarnation.

    Oh, and for some reason, most American Christians’ idea of the Christmas season just happens to coincide with the materialistic one. Let’s see how many Christians here are still talking about “the reason for the season” on January 3rd, hmm?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Finally, I hate to say it, but Rand has a point.

    At this point, most American Christians could more easily identify with a holiday in which you put up a shiny, decorated tree, give lots of gaily wrapped presents, deck the house with lights, bake lots of special treats — oh, and pay nominal homage to the birth of Christ — than they could with a holiday that had no tree, no gifts, no lights, and no feasts, but a focus on the Incarnation.

    I’m not trying to encourage pietism here, but as a Christian who has so far failed to get into “the Christmas spirit” (read: lights, tree, gifts) with his kids, I definitely feel like a freak this time of year, even if we’re in no way holding back on the actual Christological themes.

    I mean, come on, American Christians like to talk a good game about “keeping Christ in Christmas”, but at the end of the day, Jesus often just serves as a convenient excuse for all these cultural trappings that are, yes, fun and enjoyable. Who doesn’t love lights, presents, and cookies? I do, but that’s got diddly to do with the Incarnation.

    Oh, and for some reason, most American Christians’ idea of the Christmas season just happens to coincide with the materialistic one. Let’s see how many Christians here are still talking about “the reason for the season” on January 3rd, hmm?

  • Grace

    “Oh, and for some reason, most American Christians’ idea of the Christmas season just happens to coincide with the materialistic one. Let’s see how many Christians here are still talking about “the reason for the season” on January 3rd, hmm?”

    Be careful how you judge others. We all need to look within our OWN HEARTS to discover our sinful selves, or what another individual will be – - talking about” on January 3rd, hmm? – - ?

    Who knows what anyone will be doing, thinking, or mourning on that day. Or what the world will be like? No one knows. When anyone sets themselves up as a model,….. be CAREFUL!

  • Grace

    “Oh, and for some reason, most American Christians’ idea of the Christmas season just happens to coincide with the materialistic one. Let’s see how many Christians here are still talking about “the reason for the season” on January 3rd, hmm?”

    Be careful how you judge others. We all need to look within our OWN HEARTS to discover our sinful selves, or what another individual will be – - talking about” on January 3rd, hmm? – - ?

    Who knows what anyone will be doing, thinking, or mourning on that day. Or what the world will be like? No one knows. When anyone sets themselves up as a model,….. be CAREFUL!

  • SKPeterson

    We are actually sort of odd – we keep the lights on thru Christmas and take them down at Epiphany.

  • SKPeterson

    We are actually sort of odd – we keep the lights on thru Christmas and take them down at Epiphany.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Grace (@17), this may come as a shock to you, but this is not my first Christmas, so, yes, I have some clue how things are likely to play out this year.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    Grace (@17), this may come as a shock to you, but this is not my first Christmas, so, yes, I have some clue how things are likely to play out this year.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 19

    REALLY? – this isn’t your first Christmas? I’m SHOCKED, really I am. :lol:

  • Grace

    tODD @ 19

    REALLY? – this isn’t your first Christmas? I’m SHOCKED, really I am. :lol:

  • rlewer

    “The Word was made flesh and lived among us.”

    God created and behold it was very good. Perhaps God also likes lights and beauty and joy and decorations. Perhaps the message of God to Adam and Eve at their creation was,”Enjoy.” Why else would God create such an original enjoyable world?

    Don’t let the pietists ruin your Christmas?

  • rlewer

    “The Word was made flesh and lived among us.”

    God created and behold it was very good. Perhaps God also likes lights and beauty and joy and decorations. Perhaps the message of God to Adam and Eve at their creation was,”Enjoy.” Why else would God create such an original enjoyable world?

    Don’t let the pietists ruin your Christmas?

  • larry

    Todd @ 16.

    That is a good point. Indeed Rand’s point is deeper than may have been meant. That atheist huff and puff is nothing new at all. And indeed Christians talk a good game. But all these things are connected. Most atheist that become an atheist became one because they had a moralistic “evangelical”, pietistic, sacramentarian, sect, heterodox (pick your term) “Christianity” preached to them. Why is that? Hmmm.

    We were doing Christmas cards to friends and family the other day, all professing Christians of various but mostly “evangelical” stripes. I’ll keep the names out, but suffice it to say one family member had conniption fit over the content of the card. It was basically saying about his name being Emmanuel and then saying what that means, God with us, God with us in our baptism, in the Lord’s Supper, etc… I told the individual a bit exasperated, “You know, as an actual ex-atheist of 33 years (myself), a real living breathing walked the walk talked the talk atheist, I NEVER EVER thought upon converting to Christianity that I’d have to hide and be ashamed of the Christian faith to other Christians. I expected it from my fellow atheist friends with whom I’d walked and talked the talk for years, but not Christians themselves.” I’ve been shocked ever since.

    Thus, it’s not shocking at all what Rand said about (evangelical/sacramentarian and pietistic Lutherans) Christians talking the talk and a “big game”. Because they say they want “Christ back in Christmas” yet they remove Him from every other point of the Christian faith such that it is no longer really Christian just the façade and monikers retained. Without Christ actually in the means of grace, all you really have is a thin outer veneer of Christianity whose insides are really little more than a version of Islam, Buddhism or a hundred other works righteousness relgions out there. No Christ in the means of grace, then really no Christ and no Christ no Gospel. No Gospel no Christianity to call upon. No Christianity, no real CHRISTmas.

    In short: Christians need to “put” Christ back into absolution, baptism and the Lord’s Supper first, then He’ll be in Christmas again. Otherwise there really is no point of attempting to put “Christ back into Christmas” when He’s missing from the means of grace themselves.

    It’s no shock that atheist would say what they say in such things as this. Even greater, if Christ is not in the means of grace, really, truly and verily, then there is little difference in the myth of Santa Clause and the myth of (other) christs. Because both are keeping naughty lists and checking them twice to find out who gets meritorious rewards for being nice and who gets a bucket of boogers for being naughty.

  • larry

    Todd @ 16.

    That is a good point. Indeed Rand’s point is deeper than may have been meant. That atheist huff and puff is nothing new at all. And indeed Christians talk a good game. But all these things are connected. Most atheist that become an atheist became one because they had a moralistic “evangelical”, pietistic, sacramentarian, sect, heterodox (pick your term) “Christianity” preached to them. Why is that? Hmmm.

    We were doing Christmas cards to friends and family the other day, all professing Christians of various but mostly “evangelical” stripes. I’ll keep the names out, but suffice it to say one family member had conniption fit over the content of the card. It was basically saying about his name being Emmanuel and then saying what that means, God with us, God with us in our baptism, in the Lord’s Supper, etc… I told the individual a bit exasperated, “You know, as an actual ex-atheist of 33 years (myself), a real living breathing walked the walk talked the talk atheist, I NEVER EVER thought upon converting to Christianity that I’d have to hide and be ashamed of the Christian faith to other Christians. I expected it from my fellow atheist friends with whom I’d walked and talked the talk for years, but not Christians themselves.” I’ve been shocked ever since.

    Thus, it’s not shocking at all what Rand said about (evangelical/sacramentarian and pietistic Lutherans) Christians talking the talk and a “big game”. Because they say they want “Christ back in Christmas” yet they remove Him from every other point of the Christian faith such that it is no longer really Christian just the façade and monikers retained. Without Christ actually in the means of grace, all you really have is a thin outer veneer of Christianity whose insides are really little more than a version of Islam, Buddhism or a hundred other works righteousness relgions out there. No Christ in the means of grace, then really no Christ and no Christ no Gospel. No Gospel no Christianity to call upon. No Christianity, no real CHRISTmas.

    In short: Christians need to “put” Christ back into absolution, baptism and the Lord’s Supper first, then He’ll be in Christmas again. Otherwise there really is no point of attempting to put “Christ back into Christmas” when He’s missing from the means of grace themselves.

    It’s no shock that atheist would say what they say in such things as this. Even greater, if Christ is not in the means of grace, really, truly and verily, then there is little difference in the myth of Santa Clause and the myth of (other) christs. Because both are keeping naughty lists and checking them twice to find out who gets meritorious rewards for being nice and who gets a bucket of boogers for being naughty.

  • passing throgh

    Ayn Rand.

    What a loser.

    Talk about not having a clue.

    Maybe she had Asperger’s.

    What else would explain her cluelessness?

  • passing throgh

    Ayn Rand.

    What a loser.

    Talk about not having a clue.

    Maybe she had Asperger’s.

    What else would explain her cluelessness?

  • http://derekjohnsonmuses.com Derek Johnson

    So if I’m hearing you correctly Mr. Atheist, you think Christmas would be better if we dumped the God who laid aside his divinity and put His lowly subjects AKA the little guys first. Yes, that makes it so much more business-Republican. #theconsciousoftheRepublicanParty

  • http://derekjohnsonmuses.com Derek Johnson

    So if I’m hearing you correctly Mr. Atheist, you think Christmas would be better if we dumped the God who laid aside his divinity and put His lowly subjects AKA the little guys first. Yes, that makes it so much more business-Republican. #theconsciousoftheRepublicanParty

  • Grace

    Jesus was and is God the Son, being DEITY, HE was unable to sin. There are many passages of Scripture which point to Jesus being part of the GODHEAD, therefore unable to sin.

    Can you think of any passage of Scripture which says that God can sin? – do you think it possible? If God can or could have sinned, than HE too would have needed a Savior?

    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    John 14:9

    Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
    Isaiah 7:14

    Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us. Matthew 1:23

    Strongs Hebrew Immanuel

    Hebrew ‘el – ale –

    the Almighty, deity.

  • Grace

    Jesus was and is God the Son, being DEITY, HE was unable to sin. There are many passages of Scripture which point to Jesus being part of the GODHEAD, therefore unable to sin.

    Can you think of any passage of Scripture which says that God can sin? – do you think it possible? If God can or could have sinned, than HE too would have needed a Savior?

    Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
    John 14:9

    Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
    Isaiah 7:14

    Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us. Matthew 1:23

    Strongs Hebrew Immanuel

    Hebrew ‘el – ale –

    the Almighty, deity.

  • Larry

    Christains are looking at this all wrong. First, count it all blessing that we are mocked by such. It is of course persecution to mock the word of promise (Paul Gal.), whether its rank atheist or sect’s doctrine, both mock “Christ for you”, i.e. they mock promises as “not true, not real, not as spoken”. Second, with all their grand fervor to “get Christ out of the public eye” in Christmas, the irony of this HUGE public billboard complete with a picture of the crucifixion surely exudes how Satan’s work fails even when it wins. Judas kisses Christ and betrays Him to crucifixion, yet this saves the world. Just as they drew pictures of a donkey headed God being crucified as foolishness (Paul predicts) in juxtaposition to the Roman gods of glory, power and might, (gods who too could not sin or become sin, i.e. the foolishness of God) and that didn’t hurt but provided the seed bed and ground of the church; so to is the mockery of portraying in picture as myth the crucified God in juxtaposition with a secularized god as if real, here Santa or the idea of Christmas otherwise from Christ.

    And similar to atheist thought on the revealed God: “Can you think of any passage of Scripture which says that God can sin?”

    Its much worse than that, Christ did not know sin, He became THE sinner. “He made Him to BE sin (i.e. THE sinner, sin is not nor cannot be an abstraction as gnosticism poses) Who knew no sin”. And He was “made the curse for us”, etc… Enthusiasts and sects miss the ontological revelation being made when they make God impassible via their imported Greek philosophy (i.e. Aristotle’s god), that God indeed became in the person, the hyp0stasis, of Jesus sin Himself. Put another way, Jesus, who knew no sin became THE sinner.

    Whether it be rank atheist or pseudo Christian doctrines, the offense, the folly and foolishness is not “is it real” but that God so descends so deeply in the mud of sinners that He becomes THE sinner and is crucified for it, guilty now Himself, for us and is then absolved, Christ, for what is now His sin (the first half of the great exchange, in truth and reality) and exchanges to us (the sinners before hand in reality and truth) so that we are no longer sinners, though in this temporary fleeting fog of “now” we sin by the second. For Christ crucified was no symbolic show trial with Christ just carrying the sins of the world in abstracto on His shoulders. No, he became THE sinner ontologically. And this should terrorize any man that even the very Son of God was not spared when He in reality was made to be a sinner, more THE sinner. Then we look to Christ’s crucifixion as sinner for us, but then look to His absolution in His resurrection which is ours, in our baptism as Paul ENJOYS saying so very very much.

    The Word has proclaimed another reality that is in the face of all seen in this dissolving reality. This reality with all its glory gods, of atheist, of other religions, of heterodoxies calling themselves “Christian” is in reality false, while the true reality, the Worded reality is. Notice which ever of these three, ultimately same religions, they all three attack “their” pet promise of God with the mockery and laughter as Paul states in Galatians regarding Ishmael. The mockery, the laughter, the “it’s not true”, the “hath God really said” is ultimately not a failure of intellectual grasp or reason. For if God is God, then reason should EASILY be able to say, “Even if I reason cannot grasp it, God is certainly infinite and its quite simply very possible”. Rather it ALL boils down to self righteousness. All the huff and puff arguments about the “existence” of God (Note: atheist only really attack Christ, not other gods, and not their own called the universe), against the promises of God, against the sacraments, against justification, against the crucifixion and resurrection, none of them are intellectual problems (though they disguise themselves in such hubris). No they ALL without exception boil down to self righteousness. When the second advent occurs, this veil will be lifted and faith will give way to sight where sight did not see or experience to the believers, and that which sight saw and experiences as “real” will at last dissipate into the dissipation it has been since the Word spoke and was resurrected.

  • Larry

    Christains are looking at this all wrong. First, count it all blessing that we are mocked by such. It is of course persecution to mock the word of promise (Paul Gal.), whether its rank atheist or sect’s doctrine, both mock “Christ for you”, i.e. they mock promises as “not true, not real, not as spoken”. Second, with all their grand fervor to “get Christ out of the public eye” in Christmas, the irony of this HUGE public billboard complete with a picture of the crucifixion surely exudes how Satan’s work fails even when it wins. Judas kisses Christ and betrays Him to crucifixion, yet this saves the world. Just as they drew pictures of a donkey headed God being crucified as foolishness (Paul predicts) in juxtaposition to the Roman gods of glory, power and might, (gods who too could not sin or become sin, i.e. the foolishness of God) and that didn’t hurt but provided the seed bed and ground of the church; so to is the mockery of portraying in picture as myth the crucified God in juxtaposition with a secularized god as if real, here Santa or the idea of Christmas otherwise from Christ.

    And similar to atheist thought on the revealed God: “Can you think of any passage of Scripture which says that God can sin?”

    Its much worse than that, Christ did not know sin, He became THE sinner. “He made Him to BE sin (i.e. THE sinner, sin is not nor cannot be an abstraction as gnosticism poses) Who knew no sin”. And He was “made the curse for us”, etc… Enthusiasts and sects miss the ontological revelation being made when they make God impassible via their imported Greek philosophy (i.e. Aristotle’s god), that God indeed became in the person, the hyp0stasis, of Jesus sin Himself. Put another way, Jesus, who knew no sin became THE sinner.

    Whether it be rank atheist or pseudo Christian doctrines, the offense, the folly and foolishness is not “is it real” but that God so descends so deeply in the mud of sinners that He becomes THE sinner and is crucified for it, guilty now Himself, for us and is then absolved, Christ, for what is now His sin (the first half of the great exchange, in truth and reality) and exchanges to us (the sinners before hand in reality and truth) so that we are no longer sinners, though in this temporary fleeting fog of “now” we sin by the second. For Christ crucified was no symbolic show trial with Christ just carrying the sins of the world in abstracto on His shoulders. No, he became THE sinner ontologically. And this should terrorize any man that even the very Son of God was not spared when He in reality was made to be a sinner, more THE sinner. Then we look to Christ’s crucifixion as sinner for us, but then look to His absolution in His resurrection which is ours, in our baptism as Paul ENJOYS saying so very very much.

    The Word has proclaimed another reality that is in the face of all seen in this dissolving reality. This reality with all its glory gods, of atheist, of other religions, of heterodoxies calling themselves “Christian” is in reality false, while the true reality, the Worded reality is. Notice which ever of these three, ultimately same religions, they all three attack “their” pet promise of God with the mockery and laughter as Paul states in Galatians regarding Ishmael. The mockery, the laughter, the “it’s not true”, the “hath God really said” is ultimately not a failure of intellectual grasp or reason. For if God is God, then reason should EASILY be able to say, “Even if I reason cannot grasp it, God is certainly infinite and its quite simply very possible”. Rather it ALL boils down to self righteousness. All the huff and puff arguments about the “existence” of God (Note: atheist only really attack Christ, not other gods, and not their own called the universe), against the promises of God, against the sacraments, against justification, against the crucifixion and resurrection, none of them are intellectual problems (though they disguise themselves in such hubris). No they ALL without exception boil down to self righteousness. When the second advent occurs, this veil will be lifted and faith will give way to sight where sight did not see or experience to the believers, and that which sight saw and experiences as “real” will at last dissipate into the dissipation it has been since the Word spoke and was resurrected.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X