Posted on 12/07/2005 2:36:38 PM PST by Charles Henrickson
According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.
William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article "Calculating Christmas," published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.
True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, "The Birth of the Unconquered Sun," on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun "was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians." Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.
The early church tried to ascertain the actual time of Christ's birth. It was all tied up with the second-century controversies over setting the date of Easter, the commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection. That date should have been an easy one. Though Easter is also charged with having its origins in pagan equinox festivals, we know from Scripture that Christ's death was at the time of the Jewish Passover. That time of year is known with precision.
But differences in the Jewish, Greek, and Latin calendars and the inconsistency between lunar and solar date-keeping caused intense debate over when to observe Easter. Another question was whether to fix one date for the Feast of the Resurrection no matter what day it fell on or to ensure that it always fell on Sunday, "the first day of the week," as in the Gospels.
This discussion also had a bearing on fixing the day of Christ's birth. Mr. Tighe, drawing on the in-depth research of Thomas J. Talley's The Origins of the Liturgical Year, cites the ancient Jewish belief (not supported in Scripture) that God appointed for the great prophets an "integral age," meaning that they died on the same day as either their birth or their conception.
Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.
Note the pro-life point: According to both the ancient Jews and the early Christians, life begins at conception. So if Christ was conceived on March 25, nine months later, he would have been born on Dec. 25.
This celebrates Christ's birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their "Yule" festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: "The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).
Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.
I will not waste hours refuting material that is at best wishful thinking on the part of religious people who can't live with the fact ...
So it's those "religious people" who are the biased and dismissive ones unable to face facts here, huh?
Then please do.
Yes they are. You can either be religious and face the truth of history or try to run away from truths you dislike or even change those facts (not unlike the liberals who try to rewrite history themselves). Why not face up to the fact that Christianity has borrowed from other religions specifically Mithraism and get over it. The Early Catholic church did the same thing when they stated that Mithra worshipers had been deceived by the devil because the Devil of course knew the future and told them what was going to happen. They knew that portions of Mithraism were similar to Christianity. Oh course you are trying to turn this debate to make me an enemy of Christians nope won't work your not quite as slick as the early church. I am a Christian I just know and understand the history of the Church.
Here are some sites I quickly found....
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/mithras.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithraism
http://www.mithraism.org/
BTW I don't endorse these sites as I have done most all my research offline and I throw these up as quick responses to a poster who is obviously hostile to unbiased research.
What bosh. No one's running from anything. That's a phony and sophmoric dichotomy. The notion that Christian religion and historical truth are de facto mutually exclusive is pure tendentiousness.
Christianity has borrowed from other religions specifically Mithraism and get over it. The Early Catholic church did the same thing ...They knew that portions of Mithraism were similar to Christianity ... nope won't work your not quite as slick as the early church. I am a Christian I just know and understand the history of the Church.
Then surely you can cite at least one document from the Early Church which supports that history of the Church which you claim to know so well.
At the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds tended their flocks in the fields at night.
(Luke 2:8) Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night.
A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks back home and sheltered them.
As these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is likely that October had not yet commenced.
Riiiight.
I throw these up as quick responses to a poster who is obviously hostile to unbiased research.
No need for cheap shot judgements. I've no fear nor hostility to any historical truth. Absolute core among the beliefs of Christianity is that all truth ultimately leads to Christ because He is Truth itself, and truth cannot contradict truth.
With regards to the whole underlying argument regarding Paganism and its influence on Christianity, suffice it to say that similarity is not causation, and the historical facts of any Christian appropriation of "pagan" symbols, rituals, etc. are not evidence of the authenticity of Christianity.
you are running away from facts of History as they are presented to you by certainly well meaning people.
Here are a few notes about the writings of early Christian scholars and Mithra. If you don't know who they are please feel free to look them up and their writings.
Tertullian States
The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some¾ that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius [legendary king of Rome, 8th-7th century BCE], and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has sown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints…
Tertullian [Tertullian, /Praescr./, ch. 40.] states also that the worshippers of Mithra practiced baptism by water, through which they were thought to be redeemed from sin, and that the priest made a sign upon the forehead of the person baptized; but as this was also a Christian rite, Tertullian declares that the Devil must have effected the coincidence for his wicked ends. "The Devil'', he also writes, "imitates even the main parts of our divine mysteries", and "has gone about to apply to the worship of idols those very things of which the administration of Christ's sacraments consists".
Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /1 Apol./, ch. 66.] had already complained when he declared that it was Satan who had plagiarized the ceremony, causing the worshippers of Mithra to receive the consecrated bread and cup of water.
Martyr says in his First Apology (LXVI):
And this food is called among us Eucharistia, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body"; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood"; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.
The devil led the heathen to anticipate Christ with respect to several things, as the mysteries of the Eucharist, etc. "And this very solemnity (says St. Justin) the evil spirit introduced into the mysteries of Mithra."
There is so much more here and there the Christians admit that Mithra worshippers were doing these rites before the Christians or why would they be saying that the devil anticipated the actiosn of the faithful.
Oh, and since I have posted actual quotes from people who actually lived at the time discussing the similarities that your websites say aren't real, I expect you to put up some evidence for your claims or go away and troll someone else.
Xmas is derived from the Greek letter "Chi" 
The word Christmas is a contraction of Christ's Mass, derived from the Old English Cristes mæsse and refering to the religious ceremony of mass. It is often abbreviated Xmas, probably because X or Xt have often been used as a contraction for Christ. The English letter X resembles the Greek letter Χ (chi), the first letter of Christ in Greek (Χριστός transliterated as [Christos]). Crimbo is an informal synonym used in British English. Xmas is pronounced the same as Christmas, but most people just say X-Mas.
From day 1, attempts were made to denigrate Christian belief and substitute false history. You would guess that the same games continued to be played in the 4th century, just as they are today. Certainly, claiming Christmas was a Christian highjack from paganism would fit that bill. The enthusiastic trashing of what sounds like a very plausible explanation that you have posted here in favor of everything from saturnalia to mithraism is of exactly the same character.
It is certainly God's will to have us know about and treasure the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. The event itself is recorded in the gospels, in the infancy narratives of Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2, and it is referred to theologically in John 1:14 and Galatians 4:4-5, for instance. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the church wanting to ponder and rejoice in the mystery of the Incarnation with a holy day.
And the Festival of the Nativity of Our Lord--one of the three chief festivals of the church year--would not be complete without the Feast! The Christ Mass includes the Mass--they're not in competition with each other!
Both Tertullian and Martyr argue Christians did not borrow or were not imitating the baptismal and Eucharistic rites of Mithraism or other pagan practices, but that they received them from the Apostles themselves--precisely the opposite of your claim that they knowingly borrowed these things from Mithraism.
Contrary to what you seem to believe to be convincing evidence, acknowledging that pagans may have practiced similar rites prior to Christians (which Tertullian and Justin believe were inspired by Satan's mocking of relevant Old Testament scripture and teachings of the Apostles) is not in any way shape or form an admission that the Church knowlingly imitated Mithraism.
Because I've not an ounce of fear with regards to the historical record of the Church Fathers, below are links to the full texts from which you have quoted. I strongly urge interested parties to read through them for themselves and decide whether or not Justin Martyr and Tertullian's writing amounts to an admission tnat the Early Church "borrowed from other religions specifically Mithraism", which is what you specifically asserted.
The Prescription Against Heretics by Tertullian
The links I've posted to you come from a site which contains a huge library of writings from the Early Church Fathers. Time spent reading them in their full context will be a great reward for you next time you decide to posture as an expert on their writings.
Well, yes and no. BECAUSE the EVENT is so important and meaningful, we have chosen to set aside a DATE to remember and rejoice in it every year. Therefore, by association, the date becomes important and meaningful to Christians, for whom that annual remembrance is meaningful.
Frankly, I'd like to see a True Christian Christmas celebrated ... oh, say, ... Jan. 31, just to set it aside from the bloated, secularized holiday that "Xmas" has become.
I too like to see a true Christian Christmas celebrated, and I see it celebrated precisely that way IN CHURCH on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and through the twelve days of Christmas, when the good news of Christ's birth is preached, when it is sung in beautiful and joyful hymns, and when Christ himself is received in the Sacrament.
The bloated, secularized stuff may have only some loose, vestigial connection to the real deal, but that doesn't stop me from having a true Christian Christmas. Abusus non tollit usum.
Uh . . . no.
Pardon me while I step aside. I don't want to get hit by a heavenly zot.
Hmm you asked me to support this statement with evidence
"They knew that portions of Mithraism were similar to
Christianity"
to quote you
"Then surely you can cite at least one document from the Early Church which supports that history of the Church which you claim to know so well."
Why not go back and look at what you asked me to do before you start attacking me for doing what you wanted.
Now you wish to change the debate and argue something else entirely. I will jump through hoops but if you continue to change what we are discussing then the readers here are going to see that you are merely ducking my attempts at answering your criticisms.
Of Course that is what they are arguing they are trying to convince early Christians that the ceremonies of Christianity are special and unique, which they aren't. The rituals and ceremonies developed for Christians are not unique nor are they special. One must realize that Christianity is not the messenger it is the message and that is what you forget. Christianity did not develop in a vacuum and certainly borrowed from other religions to deny that is to deny basic historic fact. What Christianity is is what is written in the Bible all the ceremony, and verbal baggage that comes along with it is nothing and most of it is not even Christian. Now can I find evidence of what I just said from the quotes of early Christians? Of course not they would rather admit that Satan was mocking them than admit their ceremonies come from pagan sources. What I can do is give evidence for those same ceremonies held prior to Christian inclusion of them and show that Christ did not tell the early Christians to do these things. The Churches developed these practices themselves but not in a vacuum they developed these practices as adherents of other religions entered Christianity and added their own local variations to the mix. It has been happening for centuries how many pagan Gods were changed into Saints and how many pagan customs became Christian customs surrounding Christmas Easter Halloween etc. Those have been in the religion for less time and aren't seen as an integral part of the religion. I can imagine a time a thousand years from now when someone will be arguing that the Christmas tree has always been part of the church and that there is no way it was added from some Pagan religion.
I have one question for you "Was Christ born on December 25th and if not who made that day a Holiday?"
I just realized that you aren't even actually reading my responses you are just responding. If you would actual read what I am saying we might be able to discuss this matter in a much more civil manner.
See you quoted me completely out of context. Here is the quote
"Christianity has borrowed from other religions specifically Mithraism and get over it. The Early Catholic church did the same thing ...They knew that portions of Mithraism were similar to Christianity ... nope won't work your not quite as slick as the early church. I am a Christian I just know and understand the history of the Church.
Then surely you can cite at least one document from the Early Church which supports that history of the Church which you claim to know so well"
You looked at what my post and thought that I stated that the early church actually said they borrowed from Mithraism. If you look at what I actually wrote I said the early church denied they borrowed from that religion (as you do) but they knew that the religion was similar and even said it was similar. You then asked me to prove that they said that. However you had read something I never said into that quote. If you will read what I wrote again you will see that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.