Why December 25? The origin of Christmas had nothing to do with paganism

WORLD Magazine ^ | Dec 10, 2005 | Gene Edward Veith

[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.

[Vicomte13]

"If you are not, the Ten Commandments do not apply to you and never did."

"News to me. At least I don't have to feel bad about stealing candy from Ben Franklin's 5&10 when I was little!"

Yes you do. Because the 7 Noachide Laws, the laws that God laid down to Noah and his offspring long before Moses and the Ten Commandments, apply to ALL of mankind.

If you're not a Jew, then you're either a son or daughter of Ham or, if you're European or Asian in origin, a son or daughter of Japheth. All we really know about you, Biblically, is that Ham is cursed but Japheth is blessed.
And we know the 7 laws that God handed down for all the sons and daughters of Noah:

(1) Do not murder.
(2) Do not steal.
(3) Do not worship false gods.
(4) Do not be sexually immoral.
(5) Do not eat the limb of an animal before it is killed.
(6) Do not curse God.
(7) Set up courts and bring offenders to justice.

Those are the 7 Commandments that apply to all men. The 12 or 13 (Christians say "10", but there are more than 10 in the 10) commandments are just part of the 613 Commandments in the Law of Moses, all of which are applicable, on their face, to Jews.

If you're not a Jew, the 7 Noachide laws apply to you.

[stripes1776]

Because when the calendar was changed, we added three days.

In 1752 when the Gregorian calendar was started, Wednesday, September 2 jumped to Thursday, September 14. Wouldn't that be 12 days?

[Captiva]

Damn.


Thanks.

[Vicomte13]

Yep, you're pretty much doomed to the eternal fire already.

So there's no point in even trying to be good now.

[NeonKnight]

Christmas Lights

5mb

[AlGone2001]

"It isn't. He was crucified, died, and was buried on Friday. Saturday was the day of rest in the tomb. He rose early on Sunday--the third day, counting inclusively."

What most people overlook is that not all Sabbaths occur on a Saturday.

There are other days that are called high Sabbaths, regardless of the day of the week they fall on.

John 19

31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

Since He rose on the first day of the week, we know that he had to have been crucified on Thursday in order to have been in the ground three days and three nights. People get stuck on the Friday crucifixion, simply because they see it was the eve of the Sabbath. When one does not research it any further, his mind is stuck on Friday, which is impossible.

Leviticus 23:7 is a perfect example of a High Sabbath, which falls on the first and last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Verse 24 makes the New Year a high Sabbath (yes, the religious new year falls on the first day of the seventh month, known as Rosh HaShanah, or head of the year).

Verse 27 makes the Day of Atonement a High Sabbath. So... a Sabbath is not necessarily on a Saturday.

The verse I placed above from John 19 refers to this Sabbath as a high day. Since it is occurring during the Week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, we can be sure this was the eve of a High Sabbath. This is especially true, since we need to use some form of new math to make Sunday come three days after Friday.

[Navydog]

"Imagine that you have all your life been brought up hearing stories of Mithra born of a Virgin, 12 disciples, died and was reborn, etc etc the same story is that of Jesus. Was Paul thinking this is my father's religion made flesh by my Mother's people."

I believe the actual original story of Mithra was that he was born from a rock....the result of this birth left a cave. The addition of the 12 disciples was added later after Mithra became associated with Sol-Invictus (Sun worship)...the 12 disciples were the 12 signs of the zodiac. Along comes Jesus....the Romans, being the masters of assimilating other religions into their own rather than conquering them, begins to associate Christ with Mithra somewhere around 150 AD.

So...here we are 2000 years later, wondering how a Jewish based religion suddenly moved it's Sabbath from the seventh day (as it should be) to the first day of the week that was named for the SUN. (Sol-Invictus) Hmmm.

[Vicomte13]

"So...here we are 2000 years later, wondering how a Jewish based religion suddenly moved it's Sabbath from the seventh day (as it should be) to the first day of the week that was named for the SUN. (Sol-Invictus)"

Why "should" it be on Saturday?
We're not Jews.
The Christians didn't move their celebration day to Sunday in the 150s. They were celebrating the Lord's Day in the First Century. They celebrated on Sunday because that was the day Jesus was Resurrected, an astounding event.

If God was offended by this, you would think that he would have told them. But he did no such thing. Instead, he continued to shower them with blessings and graces.

If God doesn't care, who are we too?

[Vicomte13]

Sir,

Could you please translate this from the Greek for us?
It is from the Didache of the 12 Apostles, dates from around 50 AD. It almost certainly pre-dates the Gospel of Matthew, and may very well be the written record of the Apostles from the Council of Jerusalem, recorded in Acts.

It lays down the ORIGINAL traditions of the Church, as practiced by the Apostles THEMSELVES, so there is no question of interpretations and the interpellations of later generations.

If one wants to discover what the ORIGINAL practices of the apostolic Church were, one reads the Didache.

Section 14:1 of the Didache, reproduced from the Greek below, relates to the Lord's Day, in the words of Peter and the Apostles.

It would, perhaps, illuminate the discussion to see what the men who were at the Resurrection and Pentecost thought about The Lord's Day.


14:1 kata kuriakhn de kuriou sunacqentev klasate arton kai eucaristhsate, proexomologhsamenoi ta paraptwmata umwn, opwv kaqara h qusia umwn h.

[Diego1618]

So I guess to get your "72 hours" (as though the biblical writers were thinking according to stopwatches), you must not hold to a Good Friday, either.

I get my time line from scripture....you evidently get yours from tradition. The traditional view of a "Good Friday" burial and an "Easter" morning resurrection cannot be reconciled with Jesus Christ's own statements about how long he would be in the tomb. They cannot both be right.

John explains it best in 19:31 when he calls the upcoming Sabbath a "Special Sabbath", not to be confused with the normal Saturday Sabbath. In Luke 23:56 we see the women going home to prepare spices and then resting on the Sabbath. Earlier, in Mark 16:1 they buy the spices after the Sabbath is over.

On the surface this appears to be a contradiction until you realize that the High Sabbath is the 1st day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The next day is the day the women buy and prepare the spices after resting on the "High Sabbath. The day after that is the weekly Sabbath and they, after preparing the spices, rest again. Coincidently....this is also resurrection day shortly before sundown, [Matthew 28:1]

[Charles Henrickson]

Could you please translate this from the Greek for us?

Very literally:

"Now/but according to the Lord's of the Lord, having gathered together, break bread and give thanks, having confessed your sins, in order that your sacrifice may be pure."

The key phrase here, of course, is kyriake kyriou, "the Lord's of the Lord." (The "n" at the end of kyriake is simply the accusative ending, since the preposition kata takes the accusative.) "The Lord's ____" . . . what?

The adjective kyriake here is in the feminine, meaning that the noun to be understood would be in the feminine also. The feminine noun that would most naturally fit and be readily understood is probably hemera, "day," which already was becoming a common expression, as in Rev. 1:10.

So the passage from the Didache indicates that very early on (I've not heard a date theorized as early as yours, but still very early), the church customarily gathered on a day known as "the Lord's Day."

[nopardons]

Cromwell was an interesting man; not particularly likable, somewhat tyrannical, bordering on Talibanish...but interesting.

What's the name of the book? Is it a new one?

Not only did he order Parliament to sit, but he forbade EVERYONE from celebrating Christmas as a "happy" event. And while Christmas, back then, was licentious, wild, and very unlike what all of us now think of as CHTISTMAS, replacing it with dour church services and then right back to work, wasn't so great an idea either. But it's what appears to appeal to you. Ergo, I said what I did to you. Obviously, I was correct.

[P.O.E.]

Learn something new everyday. After reading through the posts on this thread, while researching Mithra, found the word "Henotheism"

Now all I have to do is use that word three times in a sentence throughout the day.

[P.O.E.]

Learn something new everyday. After reading through the posts on this thread, while researching Mithra, found the word "Henotheism"

Now all I have to do is use that word three times in a sentence throughout the day.

[Charles Henrickson]

Luke 24:1 "But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared."

(BTW, when did the women have time to buy and prepare the spices, which they could not have done on the Sabbath, and still get to the tomb immediately after sundown on Saturday? And to prepare a body *in the dark*?)

Luke 24:13 "And behold, two of them [Cleopas and the other man] were going that very day to a village named Emmaus. . . ."

Luke 24:21 "'Indeed, besides all this, it is the third day since these things happened.'"

(Friday, Saturday, Sunday, counting inclusively. It is now on the third day.)

Luke 24:22 "But also some women among us amazed us. When they were at the tomb early in the morning. . . .'"

Questions?

[Charles Henrickson]

There are many resources showing that the stock phrase, "three days and three nights," is not to be heard as a mathematical calculation meaning, "at least 72 hours." Rather, this idiomatic way of speaking could well be used to talk about something that occurs "on the third day," a phrase that is also used in the Bible to refer to Christ's Resurrection. Using your line of reasoning, though, that should really read, "on the fourth day"!

[IronJack]

Not only did he order Parliament to sit, but he forbade EVERYONE from celebrating Christmas as a "happy" event. And while Christmas, back then, was licentious, wild, and very unlike what all of us now think of as CHTISTMAS, replacing it with dour church services and then right back to work, wasn't so great an idea either. But it's what appears to appeal to you. Ergo, I said what I did to you. Obviously, I was correct.

You impart to me many sentiments not my own. You are not correct.

The book is Antonia Fraser's classic biography Cromwell. I've never read it before. Suffice it to say that its view of the Protector is much less critical than yours.

[Vicomte13]

The reason for 50 AD is this:

There is much in the Didache that is verbatim in the Gospel of Matthew, but there is not one word that is from the Gospel of Mark.

Now, one wonders how that can be, because Matthew is so full of Mark.

The answer becomes obvious: because the Didache predates Matthew, so when Matthew the evangelist wrote his Gospel, he used Mark, and he used the Didache.

The pastoral, and indeed catechistic nature of the Didache, dwelling not simply on morals, but one the literal details of the priestly prayers, etc., tells us that it is a document prepared not simply to instruct the faithful, but also the clergy themselves. It speaks with authority.

Eusebius refers to it as Apostolic, and he was probably the best positioned to know, given that he had access to texts which we have only heard about through him!

Anyway, yes, that is what it tells us. It tells us that the Apostolic Church gathered on "The Lord's Day", and took communion after confession.

It doesn't tell us that the Lord's Day is Sunday, of course.

Elsewhere, it tells us to fast on the fourth and the sixth day, hence the traditional Wednesday and Friday fasts. This is all very old stuff, and very interesting because we're talking about the Apostles themselves here, and what they thought was important.

And it's especially interesting because this document hasn't been available to us for all that long, and so has not been pored over by every storefront salvation salesman.

One gets the sense of peering through a time warp right into "The Early Church", which everyone was obsessed with discovering. Of course, once we got ahold of the Didache in the late 19th Century, anyone who really cared to look discovered that the "Early Church" was really quite dreadfully catholic and orthodox and not very different at all from the traditional Christianity of today.

And in a very strong way, that is comforting. It demonstrates the power of tradition to actually preserve things that the people who walked and spoke with Jesus thought was important.

Most importantly to the discussion raging on this thread: there isn't a Saturday Sabbath in the Didache. So the Apostles themselves were not practicing the Sabbath, and were not even commenting on it.

As to the fellow going on about 72 hours, I presume that your take on this is different than mine. Little apparent inconsistencies in the Scriptures do not trouble me in the slightest. To my mind, they don't need to be resolved. So there are minor inconsistencies in testimony. So what? Happens in court all the time, even when people are all being completely truthful.

Thursday, Friday...doesn't matter to me.

But I'd suppose that, from your perspective, being a Lutheran pastor and therefore more deeply focused on Scriptures than I probably am, these things do matter and they have to be hashed out to demonstrate Scriptural inerrancy. So be it.

It would seem to me that determining whether or not two high holy days happened to coincide in Passover week in the Jewish calendar at any point in the 20s, 30s or 40s AD would not be a terribly difficult mathematical drill to do with a Jewish calendar.

It also seems to me, just talking out my hat, that the day Jesus was crucified would have been a very important penitential day for the Apostles and their followers.

And yet we see in the Didache that the Apostles specifically tell their followers do NOT fast on Monday or on Thursday, the second day or the fifth day. They call those who do "hypocrites", and demand, instead, that the weekly fast days be on Wednesday and on Friday. It would be rather extraordinary that the Apostles would consider Friday and Sunday to be a fast day and the Lord's Day, respectively, but accord no importance at all, neither feast nor fast, to either Thursday or Monday, given that Thursday is three days back from Sunday, by those who demand 72 hours, and Monday is three days forward from Friday, for those who would demand three full days from a Friday crucifixion.

I wonder at the mindset that gets wrapped around the axle about 72 hours. I want to ask them: So, has Christ come back?
No?
Then are there people still living on the earth from the First Century?
After all, Jesus explicitly said that there were those alive at the time who would see him come again in glory. Which means, if we take it literally on the logic that what Jesus said has to be literally true, either that the Second Coming has happened already...which most folks who are fanatic about this sort of thing don't believe...or that Jesus said it, but it didn't happen literally as he said (assuming there are no immortal people from that generation skulking about somewhere).
I would ask someone who insists on 72 consecutive hours, or "Three Days and Three Nights, because Jesus said so, and so it has to be literally true" when the Second Coming happened...or how many immortals from that period are still walking the earth...in order for something else Jesus said to be literally true.

Etc.

[nopardons]

From your posts and in your very own words, you have proved that I am correct about you. You may try to deny it, but go read what you wrote about Christmas and the name calling you indulged in. I Am far more correct then you are, about yourself.

Thanks for the title and author...I've read that one. Fraser's a good writer, but she's always a bit "soft" on her bio subjects. Have you her one on Marie Antoinette?

[IronJack]

From your posts and in your very own words, you have proved that I am correct about you. You may try to deny it, but go read what you wrote about Christmas and the name calling you indulged in. I Am far more correct then you are, about yourself.

Are you daft? You are more correct about me than I am? God doesn't need an apprentice, you arrogant ass.

Have you her one on Marie Antoinette?

No, but judging from your manifest conceit, I can imagine she's one of your historical hero figures.