Posted on 12/18/2015 6:39:27 AM PST by NRx
As we enter into December, approximately 2 billion people will prepare to celebrate Christmas, a holiday dedicated to the birth of Jesus. We will also enter into a time of internet debate over the origins of Christmas. Many will stake their claim on its alleged pagan roots, claiming that the story of Christmas and its celebration on December 25th is simply a copy of paganism. Indeed, a quick look at YouTube will demonstrate just how popular it is to make videos pontificating on this subject. For many, it is an attempt to discredit a major world religion. On the other hand, one can find some videos made by Christians who think the majority of Christians are wrong and committing idolatry. One may even find videos of Muslim scholars utilizing the supposed pagan origins of Christmas to discredit Christianity. A more careful look at the history of Christmas, however, shows that Christmas was not a copy of a pagan holiday.
The strongest theory suggesting that Christians began Christmas celebrations in order to take over a major pagan holiday (allegedly dedicated to the Unconquered Sun) comes from Hermann Usener, who published his case in 1889. Yet, Usener’s theory is not the only one around. Gerald Massey (also in the 1800s) claimed Christians copied Egyptian mythology surrounding the Egyptian god Horus. There are problems with both of these theories and an honest look at each can help point us in the right historical direction.
Massey claimed Horus was born of a virgin and baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, who was later beheaded but there are a few problems with this. First off, what Egyptians believed and celebrated about Horus changed over time and it is only somewhat recently that archaeological evidence has allowed us access to all of this. Early Christians wouldn’t have had access to all the variations in order to try to make up what Massey claimed. Second, what we do know about the creation story of Horus is a very, very long stretch from what Massey said anyhow. Horus’ mother was a goddess (Isis) whose husband (Osiris) had been killed by Seth (the desert god) and then dismembered. Isis gathered Osiris’ body parts (here we have the mythological support for the practice of mummification) and revived him just long enough for the two of them to conceive Horus. This may be an improbable conception, but with overtones of divine necrophilia, it’s not at all what Christians claim about Mary when they speak of her conceiving while yet a virgin. As for Anup, there’s simply no evidence he ever existed. He’s made up. A few later scholars attempted to link Massey’s claim to the Egyptian god Anub. There are a few hieroglyphs that claim Anub washed the pharaoh prior to coronation, but there is no evidence this was put into any kind of practice, as it would require someone to stand in for the god Anub. Even if it had, it certainly would not be a baptism as Jews or Christians have understood it.
Usener’s theory, unlike Massey’s, has one possible piece of supporting evidence. We have a ninth century copy of a calendar document from Rome from the year 354. This document notes that 30 chariot races were to be celebrated in order to honor the birth of “Invictus,†which is normally taken to be a reference to the Unconquered Sun. This document is taken to “prove†that Christian began copying a pre-existing pagan holiday on December 25th, but in actuality, it is not proof that Christmas began being celebrated on December 25th around the year 354 in order to copy a pagan holiday. Other earlier sources give different dates dedicated to the Unconquered Sun (in August, October, and one day in December, on the 11th, not the 25th). Furthermore, pagans had begun to use chariot races rather than altar sacrifices beginning only in the 320s. This means both the date of December 25th and means of celebrating (chariot races) were recent developments. Therefore, it’s more likely that the holiday calendar from 354 actually shows a pagan reaction to a Christian holiday. Rather than showing that Christians decided to celebrate Christmas on December 25th only because a pagan god was celebrated that same day, the evidence suggests pagans likely began celebrating a pagan god on December 25th because Christians were already celebrating Jesus’ birth on that day.
So why December 25th then? Well, because of something called the liturgical calendar. Early Christians tended to assume that Jesus was born and died at the same time (normally dated March 25th). They counted an even nine months out and came to December 25th as the day he was born. It is, in fact, that simple. Now, this is not without pagan parallels. Pagans likewise believed that the acts of gods and the lives of heroes lined up. During the second and third centuries it was not only the Christians who were focused on calendars and computing holidays. Pagans were also very much into it. It was a part of society’s fabric.
So, in conclusion, what can we say about Christianity’s alleged pagan origins? Well, we can say that both Christians and pagans were a product of their time by being concerned with calendars and computing holidays and dates. What we cannot say is that Christians borrowed a story of a virgin birth from ancient Egyptian religion. Nor can we say that Christians began to observe December 25th as Jesus’ birth in order to copy (or even take over) a pagan festival. When Christians celebrate Christmas, they do so in order to celebrate the birth of Jesus, whom they believe was born from Mary, who remained a virgin. There is no evidence early Christians thought they were celebrating the birth of a pagan god. An honest look at the history of the holiday might not be as controversial as many YouTubers would have you believe, but it can help Christians and non-Christians alike better appreciate Christmas. In a season dedicated to someone called the “Prince of Peace,†(Jesus), that’s a healthier place to be anyhow.
You are correct. It is the privilege of the mature to defer to another’s weak conscience (while owning their freedom in Christ). Paul lays it out so beautifully. Know who you are and yet defer for love’s sake!
I used to work for an atheist who loved to mock every aspect of my Christian faith. I was really down on Christmas at the time for a lot of reasons. He'd say "You can go worship the tree in my office when no one is looking if you want".
I have a really long winded story about Halloween.
Selfmas I love that! Self is the major idol of mankind.
A Christmas tree is an entirely different kind of tree that is cut down, stood up and decorated with silver and gold.
This gate shall be opened to no man, for the Lord only will go in by that gate, and again go out, and it shall be shut forever (Ezekiel 44;2).
It is a consistent understanding by all of the Great Theologians of Christendom before 1517 that Christ entered into the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit and and was born (go out) and took his Human Nature from her. After the Incarnation of Christ, it (Mary’s womb) was shut forever.
And again, those brothers of Jesus were never understood to be Mary’s children. James the so called brother of the Lord is actually the Son of another Mary. None of those “brothers of the Lord” are ever called Mary’s child, Christ is several times (John 2:1, Acts 1:14). THe Mark 6:3 you cite, James and Joseph (Joses) were called brothers of the Lord and their Mothers name was Mary. In MT 27:56, we see there were many woman, Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Is this Mother of James and Joseph Mary the Mother of Christ? I don’t think so.
Look at several other Crucifixion and Resurrection accounts. In MT 28:1 we see “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning... Mary Magdalene, JOanna and the other Mary (why not Mary the Mother of CHrist). In Luke 24:10 we see another more detailed account and find Mary Magadelene again names, Joanna and Mart the Mother of James (again, not Mother of Christ.
Mark 15:40-47 we see the text indicating that there were also woman looking from the distance, among them were Mary Magadelene, Mary the Mother the younger James, Joses and Salome. Mark 16:1-2 we see Mary Magadelne and Mary the Mother of James and Salome bringing spices.
In reading these texts, the Children are used to identify which “MARY” is being referred to. There 2 being referred to here, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, The Mother of James, Joses and Salome and this Mary ain’t the mother of Jesus.
John’s Gospel indicates Mary the Mother of Christ was present at the Crucifixion and Jesus committed his Mother to John (why not James, Joses and Salome, if they were Mary, the Mother of Jesus children as well).
John’s Gospel tells us in Verse 25 “Near the Cross of Jesus stood HIS mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdala.
Now we now have 2 other Mary’s identified along side Mary the Mother of Christ and as Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell us, this “other Mary” is the Mother of James, Joses, and Salome. Since all 4 Gospels are consistent with there being THREE Mary’s, 1)Christ Mother, 2)Mary Magadelene and 3)The Other Mary, the Mother of James, Joses and Salome, this other Mary seems to be Mary (Christ’s Mother’s) sister, who was the wife of Clopas. Again, look at the text of John 19:25 and I am assuming there are only 3 Mary’s there and Mary’s sisterhood is connected to Mary either by virtue of her being the wife of Clopas (Joseph’s brother) or maybe she was a close relative to Mary the Mother of Christ and called “sister” as the bible used the term brother and sister to describe close relatives including uncles and cousins.
Regardless, James, Joses and Salome are indeed relatives of Christ, but not brothers and sisters of Christ in the sense they were the Virgin Mary’s children.
The Bible does not support it nor does any orthodox theologian of the early Church.
To borrow from the 1970’s song from the rock band queen, another protestant heresy bites the dust.
That there are "sophisticated, intellectual" chrstians (who look down their noses at people who simply believe the events asserted in the Bible actually happened) are now claiming that J*sus was literally born on 12/25 is insulting, and another position based on nothing other than wanting to make a distinction between themselves and "inbred rednecks." They forget that the nativity was originally celebrated on 1/6 (the Egyptian Nile celebration) as the "sanctification of the waters" (the baptism of J*sus), with the celebration of the birth only added later. It wasn't until later that the celebration of the birth migrated to the winter solstice because of the liturgical lessons to be learned from that event.
And you people say Genesis 1-11 is mythology. Faugh.
Iit is simply taking a Bible passage out of context.
Indeed, the bible does tend to intrude on most speculators on Christianity.
My position is “even if”. Even if there were a pagan holiday that corresponded to that same date, it means nothing. People who had honored pagan god “x” on that date, having become Christians, began to honor Christ instead. As more and more of their neighbors became Christian or at least christianized, the earlier pagan meanings were forgotten. It became a Christian holiday not out of some kind of subterfuge, but organically, because the people themselves became Christian.
No one, including non-christians, who celebrates Christmas is celebrating any pagan god. It wouldn’t even enter their minds.
Actually, he was. It was then of course not called a Christmas tree it was called an Ashera. A pagan fertility Goddess. When the good kings of Israel tore down the high places, even they dared not to remove the “Christmas” tree. It was so dear to the hearts of the people, dressed in ribbons of silver and gold with tinsel and colorful balls.
Or perhaps that was all coincidences...
I for one find it astounding that modern Christians think that setting up a pagan God in the living room is a fitting way to worship the God who said something to the effect Thou shall not have any other God before me. But then I am hopelessly old fashioned and really take Him too seriously...
Why did early Christians think that Jesus was conceived and died on the same time?
One place is: “Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?’ And they were offended at Him” (Mark 6:3).
There is no scriptural basis for this that I know of, it is possibly oral tradition. In keeping with Hebrew festivals, which or not on a Gregorian calendar but follow the lunar cycles, the exact date of Christmas is probably Hannukah! (Just my thought)
Christ is the son of Mary, that is what it isaying, James and Joses are identified as the sons of another Mary. All the text is saying is that Jesus is the Son of Mary, none of the others are referred to as her children. James and Joses Mother is the “Other Mary” that is at the resurrection per MT, MK and Luke and is identified as the wife of Clopas by John in verse 25 of Chapter 19.
Again, no text ever identifies James, Joses, Judas, SImon or Salome as the children of Mary the Mother of Christ.
No orthodox theologian on the early Church interpreted those texts the way you are interpreting them. For a quick reference take a look at Saint Jerome’s Against Helvidius, he cites almost every orthodox Theologian going back to basically 100AD who reject your view.
Thanks for posting this!
It is always vitally important bear cultural, lingual, and historical context well in mind when considering the Bible, to avoid such misunderstandings as this. You can't just look and say, "my English Bible that was translated from Greek that was used to record things said in Aramaic says "brother," so it must mean exactly what "brother" is understood to mean today, thousands of years of cultural and lingual changes later."
December 25 is Rome’s Jesus birth . That makes the 8th day January 1st,where Rome’s Jesus was circumcised. That also makes February 2nd the 40th day from the birth,which would be the day Rome commemorates their Jesus being presented in the temple.
Each of those days are Holy days in the Roman Catholic church- secular world has also made those ‘holidays’ interestingly too.
People should know those are not the right days, but they are ‘accurate’ according to the numbering that Torah states. Rome has done their homework.
Problem is, with study, a believer can know the Savior’s genuine birth day, day of His circumcision on His 8th Day, and His presentation in the temple 40 days after His birtn, that would prove Rome has counterfeited the days (substituted/instead of/in place of) that would prove The Word became flesh.
That pattern is found in the scriptures. And it is confirmed within His Creation. And it is quite an eye opener.
Like a completely different Savior comes to life. One that Rome counterfeits subtlety with its own Holy days, its own catechism, and its own Roman Pope Gregory calendar.
And the counterfeits don’t stop at the teaching of the Savior’s Birth- Rome tells a different story for the Lamb’s death,burial and resurrection, too, from what His Word and His Creation tells us.
It isn’t something people can see fully without Him showing us. The world calling today Friday, according to Rome, is the first false step of conformity- it feeds the blindness to Truth.
And the Truth will set us free!
Halleluyah!
And Jew and Gentile eyes would be open to the Word made flesh, according to His Word and His Creation, not according to Rome’s teaching from its catechism and calendar.
So subtle but that is how the enemy works.
That must have been a fun job.
The Sami (These are polar people)
A DNA test indicates that these were my mother's people.
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.
