But Joe, was Mark using the x with the intent of taking "Christ" out of "Christmas"?
Mark seems to think that Christ has NOTHING at all to do with Christmas and is just an RC holiday and worthy only of condemnation.
Mark admits that his use of the English "x" (which is a different letter than the Greek "chi.") was for Christ. Moreover, the Engish "X" is not the Greek "chi": 1) Greek and English DIFFER and are not the same language (2) Mark was not using Greek or referring to it (3) Mark admits not knowing Greek or the history of the use of the Greek "chi." Thus, your defense of him on these grounds is a simple delusion of your illusion.
In addition, as I told you and Mark previously you do not live in the Middle Ages. In the past, the Greek "chi,"(which YOU attempted to defend Mark with), not the English "X," (which Mark was using without ANY prior knowledge of the Greek history) was used for Christ. Here is the history of Greek "chi" and NOT Mark's English "X":
Quote
In the Middle Ages few could read or write, and some of these people would make "their mark" (thence the origin of the phrase) making an elaborate mark or stylised scrawl as their signature. Those not able to do so simply drew a cross, the symbol of Christ, on the paper and then kissed it. Kissing the X represented an oath to fulfil obligations specified in the document, and the X and the kiss eventually became synonymous. This X symbol was known as the Christ-cross, which later turned to "crisscross" and X also found its way into Xmas. That is why Xs sometimes (esp. at the end of a letter) signify kisses.
So, unless Mark cannot read/write (in which case he does not need to post on this forum) or he is getting "sweet" with everyone on the board , YOUR defense on these grounds it is NOT even justified historically!
Pure and simple it is disrespectful and irreverent. I am sure though with individuals such as yourself and Mark defending such lame principles that you will be able to replace all the usages of Christ in your hymnal with an "X" and of course even make a new Gen-X version of the Scriptures--XXX.
This has been beat into the ground enough. May God keep both of you from blasphemy and misuse of God's Word and Name! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
Sorry, I didn't understand your last post. (maybe it was your British accent <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/spin.gif" alt="" />) How does it answer what I had to say?
In the first place, I well know Mark's opinion of Christmas. I have not defended his opinion, but rather his usage of the "X" in place of "Christ." You attacked it as disrespectful toward our Lord, but I defended it saying that it is not disrepectful, but stems from history. It is true that the English letter X is not the Greek letter chi, but the two letters are indistinguishable in capital form, English X is derived from Greek chi, and of course it is not convenient to type Greek letters on an English keyboard. If you find it disprectful because it is an abbreviation, then I have nothing more to say except that I don't think abbreviations are inherently disrespectful.
Furthermore, the history you have provided may be true as regards illiterates signing with an X, but what I have said about the abbreviation "Xmas" is true:
Quote
The X abbreviation of 'Xmas' for 'Christmas' is neither modern nor disrespectful. The notion that it is a new and vulgar representation of the word 'Christmas' seems to stem from the erroneous belief that the letter 'X' is used to stand for the word 'Christ' because of its resemblance to a cross, or that the abbreviation was deliberately concocted "to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas." Actually, this usage is nearly as old as Christianity itself, and its origins lie in the fact that the first letter in the Greek word for 'Christ' is 'chi,' and the Greek letter 'chi' is represented by a symbol similar to the letter 'X' in the modern Roman alphabet. Hence 'Xmas' is indeed perfectly legitimate abbreviation for the word 'Christmas' (just as 'Xian' is also sometimes used as an abbreviation of the word 'Christian'). [Source: Snopes.com.]
Mark's knowledge of the history of this abbreviation is irrelevant, as he had absolutely no intent of blaspheming our Lord by misusing His Name, nor is the abbreviation itself historically blasphemous.
Your responses to me on this subject have been most unjust, Joe. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" />
Kyle
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Crutches.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Kiss-On-Lips.gif)
, YOUR defense on these grounds it is NOT even justified historically! 
