What do you know about Santa Claus?

Question: "What should parents tell their children about Santa Claus?"
Answer: Although Santa Claus is a mythical figure, his creation is based in part on a great Christian man named Saint Nicholas of Myra, who lived in the 4th century. Nicholas was born to Christian parents who left him an inheritance when they died, which he distributed to the poor. He became a priest at a young age and was well-known for his compassion and generosity. He had a reputation for giving gifts anonymously, and he would throw bags of money into people's homes (and sometimes down their chimneys) under the cover of night to avoid being spotted.
Nicholas passed away on December 6 sometime around the 340s or 350s AD, and the day of his death became an annual feast in which children would put out food for Nicholas and straw for his donkey. It was said that the saint would come down from heaven during the night and replace the offerings with toys and treats—but only for the good boys and girls. There are many different versions of the legend of Saint Nicholas, but all are the inspiration for the jolly, red-suited gift-giver that we now know as Santa Claus.
Many Christian parents are torn as to whether or not they should play the "Santa game" with their children. On one hand, he makes Christmas fun and magical, leaving wonderful holiday memories for years to come. On the other hand, the focus of Christmas should be on Jesus Christ and how much He has already given us. So, is the story of Santa Claus an innocent addition to Christmas festivities, or is he a subject that should be avoided?
Parents need to use their own judgment in deciding whether or not to include Santa during the holidays, but here are some things to consider: Children who believe that the gifts they receive Christmas morning are from a magical man with unending resources are less likely to appreciate what they have been given, and the sacrifices their parents make in providing them. Greed and materialism can overshadow the holiday season, which is meant to be about giving, loving, and worshiping God. Children whose parents are on a tight budget may feel that they have been overlooked by Santa, or even worse, deemed one of the "bad" boys or girls.
An even more troubling aspect of telling our children that Santa comes down the chimney each year to leave their gifts is that it is, obviously, a lie. We live in a society that believes that lying for the "right" reason is acceptable. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it is not a problem. This is contrary to what the Bible tells us. "For the Scriptures say, 'If you want to live a happy life and good days, keep your tongue from speaking evil, and keep your lips from telling lies'" (1 Peter 3:10, NLT ). Of course, telling our children that Santa is real is not a malicious deception, but it is, nevertheless, a lie.
Although it is probably not typical, some children honestly feel deceived and betrayed by their parents when they find out that Santa is not real. Children trust their parents to tell them the truth, and it is our responsibility not to break this trust. If we do, they will not believe more important things we tell them, such as the truth about Christ, whom they also cannot physically see.
This doesn’t mean we must leave Santa completely out of Christmas. Children can still play the "Santa game" even if they know it is all pretend. They can make lists, sit on his lap at the mall, and leave out cookies and milk on Christmas Eve. This will not rob them of their joy of the season, and gives parents the opportunity to tell their children about the godly qualities of the real Saint Nicholas, who dedicated his life to serving others and made himself into a living example of Jesus Christ.

Do christmas traditions have pagan origins?

Answer: There is no doubt that some of what we now refer to as Christmas traditions can be traced back, in some form, to pagan cultures and celebrations. The ringing of bells, for example, is generally thought to have had its origin in the early pagan winter celebration of ringing of bells to drive out evil spirits. In later centuries, bells were rung on Christmas Eve to welcome in the spirit of Christmas with joyful noise (Psalm 95:1 ). When Christians enjoy the beauty of a glorious bell choir ringing Christmas carols, we are reminded of the coming of Jesus into the world, not the driving out of evil spirits.
Similarly, there was an early pagan tradition of lighting candles to drive away the forces of cold and darkness. However, is it likely that our hearts are drawn to those early pagans rather than rejoicing in our Savior, the Light of the World (John 1:4-9 ) as we light candles? Of course not. Nor is it likely that when I give gifts to my loved ones at Christmas, the gifts will have less significance to either of us because some Druid somewhere in time offered a gift to his goat as part of some pagan ritual. No, we remember, as we should, the gifts given to the Christ-child by the Magi (Matthew 2:11 ). Jesus was the greatest gift ever given, and therefore His birth is worthy of celebration.
So obscure are the beginnings of many Christmas traditions that reference books and internet sites contradict one another on the details. Some of our most popular and beloved Christmas symbols are entirely Christian, and were never part of any pagan religion anywhere. At the same time, some Christmas traditions undoubtedly do have their origins in the pagan past. What is important is not the origins of traditions, but their significance to us today as believers in the Son of God. December 25 was not mentioned in the biblical narrative as the day Jesus was born, and, as such, we cannot be dogmatic about it one way or the other. But even if the date is completely wrong, there is still the opportunity for thousands of people who wouldn’t go to church any other time of the year to go on Christmas day and hear the gospel of Christ.
If you are fully convinced that you cannot, in good conscience, observe a particular Christmas tradition, do not observe it. If you are fully convinced that a particular tradition is too steeped in paganism to honor God in any way, by all means forsake that tradition. At the same time, if you are fully convinced that you can honor and worship God through a particular tradition, honor and worship God (Romans 14:5 )! For Christians, Christmas traditions can be an important part of the celebration of the birth of our Savior, and they remind us of that momentous event that changed the world forever. More importantly, they bring to mind the miracle of new birth He created in us when He came into our hearts, saved us from our sins, and made us children of God by the shedding of His blood on the Cross (Colossians 1:20 ). It is this amazing truth that enables us to say with the angels, “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14 ).

Xmas or Christmas?

Question: "Is it wrong to say 'Xmas' instead of 'Christmas'?"
Answer: There are many who view the word Xmas as part of an overall “ war on Christmas .” They view it as a blatant attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. While it is undeniable that some use
Xmas in that manner, the actual origin of the word Xmas has nothing to do with taking Christ out of Christmas.
In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, the word for “Christ” is
Χριστός, which begins with the Greek letter that is essentially the same letter as the English letter X . So, originally,
Xmas was simply an abbreviation of
Christmas . No grand conspiracy to take Christ out of Christmas. Just an abbreviation.
But there is no denying that there is a trend to, in a sense, take Christ out of Christmas. In pursuit of tolerance, inclusiveness, and political correctness, some are attempting to obscure the Christian origins of Christmas—as if our society’s materialism has not already obscured the meaning of Christmas. Whether they refer to it as “Xmas” or “the winter holidays” or something else, some will not be satisfied until the celebration is entirely secularized. In response to this, rather than getting angry or complaining about the use of
Xmas, we should be sharing the love of Christ through word and deed.

SHOULD JERUSALEM BE THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL?

Question: "Should Jerusalem be the capital of modern-day Israel?"

Answer: Jerusalem figures prominently in both biblical history and biblical prophecy, and it is currently the focus of much controversy and political wrangling. As of December 6, 2017, the United States has recognized Jerusalem as the official capital of Israel, acknowledging the facts of history but rankling the Muslim world. All politics aside, the declaration that Jerusalem is the legitimate capital of Israel is biblically and historically accurate.

King David first chose Jerusalem as Israel’s capital 1,000 years before Christ. The city was destroyed in AD 70, but, after World War II, on May 14, 1948, Israel once again became an independent state. The U.S. quickly recognized Israel’s restored status as a national homeland for the Jewish people. Then on December 5, 1949, Israel declared Jerusalem to be its capital again. Unfortunately, other nations have been slow in facing the reality of Israel’s independence and its right to choose its own capital.

In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which required the U.S. embassy be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. However, for twenty-two years, implementation of that law was delayed on the grounds of “national security.” Now, finally, the U.S. has officially recognized the obvious—Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This recognition accords with thousands of years of history and the wishes of Israel itself.

Of course, some are opposed to recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular (and Muslim terrorist organizations) are offended by the thought of Jerusalem being made the legitimate capital of Israel. This is due in large part to the place the Temple Mount holds as the third holiest Islamic site. According to the Qur’an (Surah 17:1), Muhammad made a miraculous night journey from Mecca to Jerusalem in AD 621. There he led worship at “the farthest mosque,” was lifted to heaven, and returned to earth to carry on his teachings. The Dome of the Rock, built in AD 692, marks the place where Muhammad supposedly ascended to heaven. Today the Temple Mount is under the control of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, a trust established in 1187 to manage the Islamic structures in Jerusalem. Under their current rules, access to the holy sites is prohibited to all non-Muslims.

It is important to realize a couple things: first, the Israeli government recognizes the rights of Muslims to worship on the Temple Mount, and it works to protect them there. Second, the Qur'an upholds the rights of the Jews to the Promised Land, which includes Jerusalem: “And thereafter Allah said to the children of Israel, ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land’” (Sura 17:104; see also Sura 2:122; Sura 45:17; and Sura 57:26).

Normally, every country designates its own capital, and then nations with diplomatic relations with that country build an embassy in that city. For instance, when Brazil moved its capital from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia in 1961, all the foreign embassies moved as well. The only country in the world whose capital has not been honored this way is Israel. All of Israel’s government buildings, as well as the residences of the President and Prime Minister, are there. Yet not a single foreign embassy is in Jerusalem. We believe that Israel should be afforded the same right as every other country to choose its own capital.

The rebirth of Israel in 1948 was a vital step in the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. The dry bones began coming back together (Ezekiel 37). The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s true and historic capital is another giant step. The stage is being set for the rest of prophetic scriptures to be fulfilled. We may not know all the implications of current events on the prophetic timeline, but one thing we can say for sure is that Jerusalem is a special city. It is the only city in the world where God has put His Name: “In Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever” (2 Kings 21:7).

What is the worst sin?

Answer: As far as it compares to the
holiness of God , all sin is the same. Every sin, from anger to murder, from white lies to adultery, will lead to eternal condemnation (James 4:17 ; Romans 6:23 ). All sin, no matter how “small,” goes against the nature and will of an infinite and eternal God and is therefore deserving of an infinite and eternal punishment (Isaiah 13:11 ). In this sense, there is no “worst” sin.
Not only does God hate sin because it goes against His will for us, but also because sin separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2 ; Jeremiah 5:25 ). God does not want us to be separated from Him. Thankfully, He has provided a way to “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8–10 ) through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:17 ). First Timothy 2:4 says that our Heavenly Father “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Your sin does not have to equal your condemnation—no matter how terrible you feel it is (see Romans 8:1 ).
Just as there is no sin too small to be worthy of punishment, there is no sin too “big” that God cannot forgive it. When a repentant prostitute came to Jesus, she found grace; Jesus then said to the onlookers, “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven” (Luke 7:47, NLT ). Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin (John 3:16 ; 1 John 2:2 ). Second Corinthians 5:21 tells us that “God made [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” For the believer, there is no sin Jesus’s sacrifice does not cover; there is no sin God cannot forgive, even if we consider it the “worst” (see 1 Timothy 1:15 ).
It is true that some sins will have bigger earthly consequences than others. Murder, for example, is going to have a much worse effect than harboring private hate. A chronic liar in a position of authority will have a wider negative effect than the child who fibs to his mother about stealing cookies before dinner. Sin is sin, but it can have different degrees of severity, and some sins call for worse penalties than others in this world.
As believers, we should hate sin as much as God does. We are “sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness” (1 Thessalonians 5:5 ). God has set us apart as “a holy nation, a people belonging to God” (1 Peter 2:9 ). Holiness is not earned; rather, it is given by the Holy Spirit as He sanctifies us (2 Thessalonians 2:13 ; 1 Peter 1:15–16 ). Christians will still sin, but God promises to help us in the fight for righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:8 ).
Do not fall into the trap of comparing sins, judging others for “worse” sins than yours, or using the seeming triviality of one sin versus another as an excuse to do it. Your first concern should be your own sin—not the sin of those around you (Matthew 7:4–5 ). God’s standard is not how well you measure up to other people but how you measure up to Christ.
Each person’s sin is a reflection of what is in his heart (Matthew 12:34 ) and emerges through his thoughts, words, and actions. God judges all these aspects of our lives and will justly yet lovingly discipline His children when they sin (Proverbs 3:11–12 ; Hebrews 12:5–11 ). God’s discipline can take varying forms, depending on each person’s situation, to bring about repentance and renewal of fellowship with God. In the end, a believer who sins then experiences discipline will come out with a stronger faith, a renewed relationship with God, the wisdom of experience, and patience (James 1:2–4).
Is there a “worst” sin? Earthly consequences for various sins vary, but heaven’s perspective is different. First Corinthians 6:9–10 lists several sins that will keep a person from inheriting the kingdom of God . On that list are some sins that people like to rank as “worse” than others, yet Paul treats them all as equally damning. The same is true in Revelation 21:8 , a list of sins that doom people to the lake of fire—lying is placed next to witchcraft and idolatry. All sin is equally bad in God’s eyes; the standard is the glorious perfection of His Son, and we all fall short of that (Romans 3:23 ). We need the righteousness of Christ, and, praise Him, that’s what He gives us when we believe (Romans 3:26 ; 4:5 ). In the final analysis, we might say that the “worst” sin is unbelief. To reject the Savior is to accept the penalty for one’s own sin. But no sin will condemn a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, because the penalty has already been paid (1 Peter 2:24 ).

Who were the Arameans?

Answer: Aram was the Hebrew designation for the nation of Syria, so the Arameans mentioned in the Bible are Syrians. In fact, some translations such as the ESV and KJV, when translating the Hebrew word for “Aramean,” substitute the word Syrian instead (see
2 Kings 7:6 ). The Arameans lived on an elevated tableland, and the topography is reflected in the fact that the word
Aram comes from a root meaning “heights.” Aram Naharaim in Genesis 24:10 means “highland of the two rivers.”
The borders of Aram encompassed a broad region immediately to the northeast of Israel, extending to the Euphrates River and including Mesopotamia. Among the major cities inhabited by ancient Arameans were Damascus (Genesis 14:15 ) and Hamath (Numbers 13:21 ). Much later, Syrian Antioch was built and is mentioned in the New Testament (Acts 11:19 ; 13:1 ). The various kingdoms comprising ancient Aram gradually unified under Damascus, which grew to be the most dominant of the Aramean kingdoms.
When Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac, he sent a servant to the land of Aram to find Rebekah (Genesis 24:10 ;
25:20 ). Laban, Jacob’s father-in-law, is called an Aramean in Genesis 31:10 . Jacob himself is called “a wandering Aramean” in Deuteronomy 26:5 , since both his mother and his grandfather were from Mesopotamia and therefore considered Arameans by the Hebrews.
During the reign of King David, the Arameans of Damascus came to the help of another group of Syrians. David defeated them, and the Arameans were forced to pay tribute (2 Samuel 8:5–6 ). Later, the Arameans joined forces with the Ammonites in war against Israel (2 Samuel 10 ). The Israelites defeated Aram again and kept them in subjugation. This arrangement lasted through the reign of King Solomon (1 Kings 4:21 ).
After the time of Solomon, the Arameans were a perennial thorn in Israel’s side. They fought Israel during King Ahab’s time, and Israel won (1 Kings 20 ). In another battle, however, they killed Ahab (2 Chronicles 18:34 ). They raided Israel (2 Kings 6:8 ) and later laid siege to the capital, Samaria (verse 24). Elisha predicted the atrocities that the Arameans would commit (2 Kings 8:12 ). The Arameans fought King Joram of Israel and wounded him (2 Kings 8:28 ). And they fought King Joash of Judah and wounded him (2 Chronicles 24:23–25). The eventual fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Babylon was aided by the Arameans (2 Kings 24:2 ).
In a wonderful demonstration of God’s grace and power, Elisha healed Naaman the Syrian of leprosy (2 Kings 5 ). Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, was an enemy of Israel, but he humbled himself enough to seek the Lord’s help. Naaman discovered that God is merciful to all those who call upon Him—even Arameans—and that discovery drastically changed Naaman’s worldview: “Now I know that there is no God in all the world except in Israel” (2 Kings 5:15 ).

Is it appropriate for a woman to propose to a man?

Question: "Is it appropriate for a woman to propose to a man?"
Answer: Marriage arrangements vary across time and cultures. The Western tradition of man on bended knee proposing marriage to his unsuspecting darling is a relatively new practice. In past times, and in many cultures today,
marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. Although the idea of a woman proposing to a man is slowly gaining acceptance, it is still considered the norm for the man to initiate a marriage proposal. But simply because a practice is traditional doesn’t mean it is right. So, according to the Bible, is it ever appropriate for a woman to propose marriage to her sweetheart?
Although there is no Bible verse that speaks definitively to this issue, the concept of the man taking the initiative to propose actually does have some foundation in Scripture. God created the man first and then created the woman from the man’s rib. Genesis 2:22 says, “Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.” Paul echoes this order of creation in 1 Corinthians 11:8–9 when he says, “For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” He goes on to explain that this order is part of God’s design in leadership, not based upon cultural mores but God’s intention. There are no instances in the Bible where a woman proposes to a man. Marriages were arranged through the families of each, and so the idea of a woman proposing was never considered.
Since God created men to lead, both in church and at home, then it seems natural that his leadership would begin with proposing marriage to the woman of his choice (1 Corinthians 11:3 ). She is, of course, free to decline his offer; however, it may not be wise to extend her freedom to proposing marriage. A woman’s proposal may set an unhealthy precedent for the resulting marriage. A common complaint by Christian women in marriage counseling is that their husbands won’t lead spiritually. If the man will not even take the initiative to propose marriage, a woman could be setting herself up for a lifetime of disappointment at his lack of leadership.
The biblical parallel of Christ as bridegroom also lends some wisdom to this issue. Throughout Scripture, Jesus is compared to a bridegroom who loves
His bride , the church, and is preparing to return and carry her away to the wedding feast (2 Corinthians 11:2 ;
Ephesians 5:25–27 ). Jesus, as our model groom, is the aggressor in every aspect of His relationship with us. It is He who came to earth to redeem us while we were far from Him (Romans 5:8 ). And it is the initiative of the Father that draws us and supplies the faith we need to respond (John 6:44 ; Ephesians 2:8–9 ). Due to this spiritual precedent, it seems clear that God’s design was for the man to bear the responsibility of pursuing the woman he loves until he proposes marriage.
But not all relationships follow the same pattern. Every romance is different, and therefore the particulars of a couple’s engagement will be unique to that couple. Some of the healthiest marriages were mutually decided as the couple spent a significant amount of time getting to know each other. As they served the Lord together, they came to see the benefit of a lifelong commitment. They began to discuss the “what if’s” of a life together, and, when the time was right, the man proposed with a ring to signify his commitment. The proposal wasn’t a surprise, but neither did she take the lead in the matter. They had already decided to move forward, and the actual proposal was a confirmation of that mutual decision.
In modern culture, the boy/girl dance of romantic commitment has been hijacked by rampant immorality and living together without marriage. This dynamic throws everything else out of sync by introducing tensions, emotions, fears, and guilt that was never to be part of an engagement. Even the concept of an
engaged couple has come to include a couple living together, presumably planning to marry at some undetermined future date. It is often the woman who secretly regrets this lack of commitment and begins to pressure her bed-mate to marry her. Sometimes there are already children involved, which was never God’s intent when He created marriage (Genesis 2:24 ; Mark 10:7 ).
It would appear from the biblical patterns that it is God’s intention that a man take the initiative in proposing, leading, serving, and providing for the woman he chooses. For an impatient bride-to-be to circumvent that pattern could result in a marriage that is out of balance and one in which both spouses come to resent this backward dynamic. It may be wise for all women desiring to marry to keep this thought as a guide: If he won’t propose, he won’t lead in other ways. I don’t want to pledge my life to a man who won’t even honor me by asking.