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.
Oh, yeah. THAT must be it. NOT.
The STAR OF BETHLEHEM also indicates that the date of birth was December 25th by those who have studied this topic in depth.
That guy is a nut job I have seen him on several of the Narnia thread attacking C.S. Lewis and his works. If it wasn't for those books especially "screwtape letters" and "Mere christianity" I would still be an atheist. It's hard for me to see somebody that can barely write attacking the writer who showed me Christ.
Will you source that.
bump for later disection!
God bless you. This person sounds like some "Christians" I have run across on the internet who have such a narrow and rigid view that anyone slightly to the left or right of them are seeds of Satan. They think the people that will make it heaven can be counted on one hand, and of course that includes them.
Precesion [sp] of the Earth on its axis.
Perhaps you need to do a little more reading. The New Testament would be a good place to start.
Because when the calendar was changed, we added three days.
Read your bible more, with Saturday being the sabbath and the last day of the week, Sunday is naturally the first day of the week.
Mt 28:1 - In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
No more sugar for you.
Shhh. Don't let facts get in the way of a good fantasy. Amazing how many of the people who believe this bilge make fun of Harry Potter books as works of fiction.
For my part, I'll be celebrating the birth of Brian on December 25th.
All three wise men: We worship you, oh Brian, who are lord over us all. Praise unto you, Brian, and to the Lord, our father. Amen.
Mother: Do you do a lot of this, then?
Gaspar: What?
Mother: This praising.
Gaspar: No, no...no, no.
Mother: Oh, well, ehm, if you're dropping by again, do pop in, huh. And thanks a lot for the gold and frankincense, ahm, but don't worry too much about the myrrh the next time, all right? Huh. Thank you! Goodbye!
This tidbit will pierce your tinfoil hat.
Narnia is an anagram for "An Iran."
I've read it. I've read the concordances. I've plunged headlong into theology, and emerged with the belief it's a lot of wishful thinking driven by desparation. Existentialism is a harsh master, but it has the advantage of being rational and honest.
Read "Mere Christianity" it postulates a rational reason to believe.
Even athiestic historians don't dispute that Christ WAS an actual historical figure. Oh, sure, I'll bet you can find a couple crackpots out there to argue the point, but then again, you can for almost anything.
The most significant person and events upon this earth are certainly not a myth. If Christ DID exist, then you are faced with several questions, such as WHO was He? What are the implications? Etc. You have simply chosen the easiest way to avoid all that by pretending that He never existed.
I'm not pretending at all. As I said, up until recently I believed there was a Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not so sure now. At any rate, he was not god.
bump for later reading
bump for later reading
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.