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.
Nothing. Last time I checked, J.K. Rowling and her fans aren't insisting that one live by the precepts of Harry Potter, demanding tithes, tax-exempt status, killing in the name of Harry Potter, or branding readers of other books as 'heretics.' Some works of fiction are enjoyed for what they are. Others lead to cults, such as Christianity, Islam, Scientology, etc. They are free to believe it but don't impose it on others or insist they are provided special treatment because of their belief in fiction as fact.
That's the one...
Merry Christmas to you & yours!
I disagree with your post about Mithrism I have done extensive study on the religion and there are major similarities in the two regardless if Christians Borrowed from Mithraism the worship of Mithra was well established before Christ's birth. The websites you quote in your other post are all Christian based sites that seek to distance Mithraism from Christianity and have a philosophical ax to grind with any hint that the two religions share any common ground. That just isn't the case as anyone that rationally looks at history can show you.
I will say that the thought Mithra died for Mankind is wrong he actually killed a bull for mankind and according to Mithraism will kill another on his return to Earth to impart immortality to man. His death was more a return to Heaven. In fact we get the idea of seven Heavens from Mithra, the pearly gates come from Mithraism, I also believe the traditional winged angels and Halos are part of Mithraism as I have seen them depicted in Mithrireaums (Sp) or temples of Mithra.
I'm sorry you're not addressing the fact that Mithraism had all that wonderful stuff that Jesus supposedly did up to two centuries before the latter made the scene.
And the additional fact, as Lewis points out: a man who says he is God is either insane, terribly evil, or is Who He says He is. We have to go on the facts of His life to decide which of these He is.
Actually Mithraism in its ultimate form did not really appear in the Roman empire until about 60 years before the birth of Christ. I also don't believe you can use Mithraism as an excuse not to believe in Christ in fact I think that it is evidence to the contrary. I believe fully that Mithraism and it's moral philosphy that stated all men are equal, that men must defend the weak from the strong, That civilization must be defended from savagery, and that Good must battle evil is evidence that God speaks to all men.
The articles referenced in my post do address the supposed historical facts you claim regarding Mithraism.
You can start with this one: Mighty Mithraic Madness
Your sources aren't exactly the most objective in this regard.
Mithraism originated in Persia quite a bit before the Romans adopted it. While I agree that God talks to all people throughout history (and even to this day), it is also my belief that a goodly portion of that which is attributed to Jesus was simply lifted wholesale from other religions.
I was going to say the same thing. I prefer to have a more scholarly discussion about this subject. I feel that the truth of what happened back then is so much more exciting than the spin that some would place on the subject.
I disagree, Jesus would seem to me to have said most if not all of what is attributed to him. He would not have had the following he had otherwise and it is clear in life many were listening.
I will agree that the Christian religion has picked up Holidays, traditions, etc from other religions but I don't doubt Jesus said the things it is reported he said.
You are correct....in fact here is the original Greek, [Now late on Sabbath as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week, came Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.] That was verse 1, and remember, the Sabbath ends at sunset....so this would be 5 to 6 P.M. Saturday our time.
Verse 6 the Angel says, again in the original Greek, [He is not here for he has risen, as he said. Come see the place where was lying the Lord.] Remember, this is still late on the Sabbath.
I just chuckle when I see people trying to convince themselves that he arose on Sunday morning.
The specific historical facts cited by those sites in refutation of the common claims regarding Mithraism are either true or they are not true, persuasive or not persuasive, regardless of the philosophical slant of the sites. You'd do well to disprove their evidence in the specific rather than dismiss them in general on the basis of what you perceive to be their suspect motives.
In other words, show us where these sites have erred as a matter of historical fact. Your extensive study of Mithraism would come in handy in such an effort, I would imagine.
Chapter and verse, please?
Matthew 28 says when.
Your sites are long and have many things that would have to be refuted. To do that I would have to sit here and quote them point per point and then discuss how archaeological evidence and historical documents dismiss many if not most of these sites.
I am much more comfortable dismissing them by citing the fact they are biased sites and asking the readers here to compare them with more scholarly studies that they would have to leave the web and go to a university library to retrieve (of course typing Mithra into a search engine could lead them to some unbiased works on the web). That said 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 that a Roman Emperor had the power to decide that baby Jesus was born on Dec. 25th (the birth day of that Emperor's ex-god) and that a Roman Emperor had the power to decide that Christian's should worship God on Sunday (the day of worship for said ex-god). That is the gist of the problem here and sensible people can go look it up for themselves without me having to baby them through the process.
Specific objective historical facts are alleged in their refutations. Those facts are either true or they are not. Now, one can either offer similarly objective historical facts in a counter argument or not. To simply flick away their arguments on the sole basis of their authors' "Christian" perspective, however, is not reasonable.
You haven't stated any facts, you have merely asked people to go look at web sites that support your assertions. Anyone can do that, I can post all kinds of web sites that say the exact opposite of yours. Please tell us a few of these facts and as people have time I am sure they will be disputed admirably.
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.