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.
Not true. The Companion Bible answers: The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years...but, when the number of nights is stated as well as the number of days, then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact. (1990, appendix 144).
Regarding Matthew 28:1; The American Standard version says: [Now late on Sabbath day].....The Bible basic English says: [Now late on the Sabbath].....The Darby Bible says: [Now late on Sabbath].....The Webster's Bible Translation says: [In the end of the Sabbath].....and the King James Version says: [In the end of the Sabbath]. They all say in verse 6....[He is not here; He has risen].
The reason most people cannot accept simple Bible truth is that it destroys the theology they have been taught since childhood. When you learn the "Good Friday/Sunday resurrection story" is a fairy tail it makes you feel betrayed.
Why do you suppose the Apostles prohibited a Thursday fast and required a Friday one if Jesus were crucified on Thursday instead of Friday?
Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday, the 14th of Nisan/Abib. He died about 3:00 P.M. as the lambs were being slaughtered in the temple, [Leviticus 23:5]. He was buried that day right before sunset, [Luke 23:54]. The new day dawned shortly thereafter, being the First Sabbath of Unleavened Bread...this would be Wednesday evening/ Thursday day (our time) , Nisan 15, [Leviticus 23:6]. The women bought their spices on Nisan 16, [Mark 16:1], Thursday evening/Friday day (our time). They rested after buying and preparing the spices according to the commandment, [Luke 23:56 and that day would be Friday evening/Saturday (Sabbath Day), Nisan 17, and also the day of resurrection at or about sundown. This would have been 72 hours from the burial in the tomb on Passover, Nisan 14, Wednesday afternoon, [Matthew 28:1].
By the way....the Douay-Rheims Bible also says in Matthew 28:1 [And in the end of the Sabbath], in other words, still the Sabbath day. Verse 6 like the others says, [He is not here, for he has risen].
LOL, because that is what is says in BOTH greek and the english translations.
Matthew 7:6
Mt 7:6 mh dwte to agion toiv kusin mhde balhte touv margaritav umwn emprosyen twn coirwn mhpote katapathswsin autouv en toiv posin autwn kai strafentev rhxwsin umav mh dwte to agion toiv kusin mhde balhte touv margaritav umwn emprosyen twn coirwn mhpote katapathswsin autouv en toiv posin autwn kai strafentev rhxwsin umav mh dwte to agion toiv kusin mhde balhte touv margaritav umwn emprosyen twn coirwn mhpote katapathsousin autouv en toiv posin autwn kai strafentev rhxwsin umav
Diego, based on what you write, am I correct in assuming you are affiliated with a Sabbatarian group in Southern California known as the "Church of God"?
Then why didn't the early Christians celebrate their Lord's Day on Saturday?
No. I am not affiliated with any church. I only represent the word of God.
That's a pity, since no one cares.
That, by definition, is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to receive the word of God aright and at the same time to cut oneself off from the church. The New Testament is replete with passages and examples to that effect.
Also, many of your posts repeat, almost verbatim, thoughts and even phrases found in Church of God articles.
They did. They also continued to celebrate the Feast Days of the Lord outlined in Leviticus 23.
Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna and disciple of the last living Apostle, John, was still celebrating Passover well into the 2nd century. He was giving the Roman Church fits because of this....but don't you think Polycarp would have got the word about "Easter" from John the Apostle?
You can verify everything I have just said. Again I'll ask just so it sinks in. Why do you suppose Polycarp was not celebrating Easter and in fact was still celebrating Passover well into the 2nd century? He told Anicetus, the Bishop of Rome he had always observed Passover with John, the Lord's Apostle.....and the other Apostles.
As you know, Polycarp was martyred, killed by Roman soldiers for his beliefs....155 A.D.
Have you noticed, they repeat, almost verbatim, thoughts and even phrases found in scripture?
This article is total bunk. The Saturnalia is a Roman copy of the Zoroastrian celebration of the winter solstice. And the 'church' didn't coopt anything. It was the church that got coopted by the pagan emperor Constantine.
That story is on the right track, but the chosen date is wrong. The Feast of Tabernacles is the prophetic feast of Christ. He was born on the first day of the F of T, and circumcised on the eighth and last day, and the year is solidly decided by the info given by Luke, regarding the tax enrollment. It had to be Sept. 29, of 4 B.C. by our calendar. This was determined by C.E. McLain more than 50 years ago.
Yes, you got it exactly right.
Your Polycarp-Passover-Easter post, for example, repeats almost verbatim an article in a "Church of God" publication. Likewise, in many of your other posts, there are distinctive phrases that most closely resemble various "Church of God" and other "Sabbath-keeping" articles. This is too much to be a coincidence.
I find it impossible to believe that eleven men would stick to the same story and die telling it, if it were just made up. It's just not how humans act, is it?
Ask Julius and Ethel. Or David Koresh and friends. Or the Japanese who were still fighting 20 years after WWII ended. Or Muslim martyrs (I don't mean bombers, I mean religious martyrs). Or the Tibetans who are being martyred for supporting the Dalai Lama.
People will die for what they believe in, whether it's true or false.
Learning a lot on this thread. Or at least reading a lot!
I remember when I was young that I wondered how Jesus was able to do so much in just a few months between his birth and death!
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.