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.
Interesting.
Again, you are speculating that until means something occurred after a point in time. I suggest you do a search on the word until in the Bible and see what you find. Again, the English understanding of the word as it is used today does not convey the meaning used in the biblical languages. The word until does not mean not after a point in time. Consider a few examples.
From the OT, Michal the daughter of Saul had no children up to the day of her death (i.e. until the day of her death)” (2 Sam 6:23)
With respect to Moses and his place of burial, we read something to the effect “nobody knows his place of burial up to this present day (i.e. until this present day) (Deut 34:6)
Gen 8:5 speaks of the flood waters that continued to abate until month 10..The Waters diminished until the tenth month, etc.
Mt 28:29 is another interesting one as Christ says “ I am with you until the end of the world”
Of course translations may differ but the concept of Until, up to this day, up to the point that, etc are synonymous. If we are to apply your line of thinking to all these texts, then we would have to conclude that Micah had a child after she died? Somebody found where Moses is buried in the time of the OT (nobody today still has found it), Did the flood waters diminish until month 10 and stop abating, if so, we would sill have the biblical flood would we not? Christ is with us till the end of the world but after that point He is NOT????
I see no evidence that ashera poles looked anything like Christmas trees, and there certainly is no historical continuity between the two, since Christmas trees originated in medieval Germany and were popularized by Martin Luther.
The missed context is that idols cannot walk or talk, why fear it. And ashra were not may poles.
Deu 16:21
English Standard Version
“You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the LORD your God that you shall make.
New American Standard Bible
“You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the LORD your God, which you shall make for yourself.
In any case, this is the only reference type in the Bible to trees and the worship of God. The reference is to Paganism and is expressly forbidden.
But, God is forgiving of the simple man, an honest mistake is easy for Him to display His Grace. But is it my weakness to honor Him by by avoiding practices that are offensive enough that they are mentioned, or is it wisdom to not study the Word and live solely by chance and Grace?
Such depth is lost in such a shallow life lived.
"You People", OTOH, deny that Jesus Christ is God and that's an absolute fact.
You seem to think it's not a very important issue. It doesn't speak well of you.
"You People", OTOH, deny that Jesus Christ is God and that's an absolute fact.
J*sus isn't in my Bible. Adam is in yours. I believe what is in my Bible; you don't believe everything in yours.
Till she brought forth her firstborn son—From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.
“It’s always best to take scripture exactly as it is and not add or take away from it.”
It is always better to apply our God-given reason, wisdom, and scholarship to understanding scripture, as God intended we would. Of course, not everyone is capable of doing so. Most people don’t use their reason very effectively, have at best a nodding relationship with wisdom, and are not scholars. And no, I’m not making any claims for myself in those areas, either. Like almost everyone, I do better when I turn for understanding to those superior to me in these virtues.
“The Holy Spirit within us helps us to discern His word”
And yet, there is much difference of opinion among those who sincerely believe themselves guided by the Holy Spirit. That can only mean that we are guided by the Holy Spirit, but not in the way you think. It is my experience that sometimes the Holy Spirit guides me to the work of someone else who is faithful, smart, wise, and learned enough to arrive at a correct and profound understanding of the matter at hand. When we contemplate those of differing opinions, each of which they believe to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, we must conclude that the whole “guided by the Holy Spirit” thing didn’t work out the way they expected it to.
I would go so far as to suppose that the holier the man, the more help he gets from the Holy Spirit.
“and we don’t really need to rely on ancient scholars for His meaning”
Actually, the vast majority of us do.
When I am confronted by the work of a once-in-a-millennium intellect illuminated by a beautiful faith, profound wisdom, and supreme scholarship, I must laugh aloud at the conceit that I could approach those heights of understanding, even if I had a thousand years to work on it.
What an insult to God to discard gifts like Augustine and Aquinas. The 20th century certainly did not see their equal, by several orders of magnitude.
“It makes no difference to me if Mary continued to be a virgin until her death, but scripture clearly points to her and Joseph having had children between them.”
Well, you see, scripture clearly points to the opposite. That was the point of my post. Apparently you gave no thought to the arguments it contained.
“However, those that believe she remained a virgin also believe additional “traditions” that are not found in scripture.”
So do you. That is what my post showed.
However, that’s irrelevant. Even if a person holds many false beliefs, it does not follow that his every belief is false.
Those are all great men and have offered us great insight. I still urge you to approach scripture just as it is, asking the Holy Spirit to help you, and let Him speak to you directly. Jesus made a Way for us to go directly to the Father, and we can trust Him to lead us into all truth. Have a blessed Christmas my friend. We’re having ours early, which is today.
Merry Christmas.
Having the same birthday and day of passing is a Jewish sign of having “come into one’s days” ie, a perfect life(span.) For instance, Moses, in Jewish tradition, was born and passed on on the 7th of the month of Adar the month before Passover.
Therefor, as appears to the Jew, this seems to be the grafting of Moses’ (Jewish) perfection (l’havdil elef havdalos) onto Jesus. The early Jewish Torah-true Jesus-as-messiah cultists would have known this.
Thanks. Interesting. But if Jesus “was born and passed” on the same day, “Christmas” would be three days before Easter. Someone here suggested that the perfection you speak of meant that Jesus was conceived and passed on the same day, and, if that were the case, he would have been born nine months later, in December. That date would also coincide with the Jewish holidays in December.
I’m no expert here.
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.