Pagan Propaganda: The Other Attack on Christmas

American Thinker ^ | December 24, 2009 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

Ah, Christmastime. Manger scenes and mistletoe, trees and tinsel, Santa and celebration, gift-giving and gratitude...and the ACLU roasting traditions on an open fire. Sadly, the last thing has become as much a seasonal expectation as the others, and the ACLU's  practice of suing our culture into oblivion has gotten a lot of ink. Yet there is another attack on Christmas -- actually, another attack on Christianity itself. This less well-known attack could ultimately prove more damaging than the usual atheistic assaults. And it's embraced by religionists themselves.

I'm sure you've heard the charges. Christmas is a "pagan holiday," they say. It originated with a celebration dedicated to Saturn (the Roman god of agriculture) which, upon coming to full flower, took place between December 17 and 23. Or perhaps it was inspired by the commemoration of a sun-god's birth. Here we have two candidates: the Indo-Iranian god Mithras and the Roman god Sol. And people often seem to confuse these two deities and their festivals, mixing and matching them in a game of musical myths. But it doesn't really matter because both Mithras' and Sol's mythical births, we're told, occurred on the same day: December 25^th.

"There you have it!" say the critics. "And the kicker is that Jesus wasn't even born on the 25^th! Besides, Christmas is unbiblical; there is no command in Scripture to celebrate the Lord's birth. Christmas is just an amalgamation of pagan feasts and the Nativity story in a nicely wrapped, brightly-colored, bow-adorned box."

This idea certainly has taken hold in some circles. Why, I know a man who claims to be Christian but is quite proud of the fact that he celebrates neither Christmas nor Easter (these creative historians apply the same reasoning to the latter). When I placed "Christmas is a" in Google, the first suggestion out of the ten I got was "Christmas is a pagan holiday." If only I could chalk it up to Google's usual "tweaking."

When I consider this particular heresy, I think of how a little knowledge is dangerous. And understand what is happening here. Some "Christians" are deciding to dispense with what have been Christianity's two highest holy days and part of the fabric of Western civilization for the better part of two thousand years, all in the name of something they heard on the Internet over the past several years. So let's examine the matter one charge at a time.

When addressing the notion that Christmas is a pagan event, we should first start with a very simple pronouncement.

It is not.

Christmas is the day on which we celebrate the birth of the founder of Christianity itself, the man on whom the faith that prevailed over paganism is based. That doesn't sound pagan to me.

But now we'll dig deeper and discuss the myth of Mithras and Sol. That is to say, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the December 25 Christmas celebration is based on either pagan deity. In fact, all the best evidence tells us something striking about the matter: neither Mithras's birth nor the celebration of Sol's even occurred on the 25^th. As to the former, writer and Mithras-cult-expert Roger Beck called the notion of the deity's December 25 birth "that hoariest of 'facts.'" Moreover, avers German professor of ancient history Manfred Clauss, "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own" anyway. And about Sol, University of Alberta history professor Dr. Steven Hijmans writes:

... while the winter solstice on or around the 25th of December was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas ... The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11^th. 

Then Cambridge professor of classics Mary Beard chimes in, addressing the similarities between Roman pagan festivals (be they Saturn's or some other's) and contemporary Christmas celebration, such as eating heartily, giving presents, and time off from work. She writes:

... lots of people have imagined that the early Christians grafted their festivities onto an old pagan ritual. Maybe they did. But there honestly is no evidence for it, beyond the rough coincidence of dates. And, in fact, it was not until a few centuries after Jesus' birth had got fixed onto 25 December that we see signs of much Christmas merrymaking. In the middle of the sixth century they still thought it necessary to forbid fasting on Christmas day.

So the early Christians preferred fasting to feasting, asceticism to Epicurism. And why would this have changed? Well, there are such things as universals. An affinity for eating, giving and getting presents, and leisure time isn't a pagan thing. It isn't a Christian thing. It is a human thing.

And what of the "rough coincidence of dates"? Well, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Will our standard be that we should dispense with a holy day if we determine that some extinct people at some point in the distant past celebrated something else around the same time of year? A Christian should be happier about the fact that Christian traditions prevailed than he is concerned about the way the battle was won.

Yet there is an even larger point here. The Christmasphobes make a fairly common mistake: They take "pagan" as synonymous with "evil."

If we were to discard all things pagan, I should think we'd plunge ourselves back into the Stone Age. We walk on concrete, record our knowledge with letters, and designate our months with names originated/invented by the pagan Romans. We steer our boats with rudders invented by the pagan Chinese; make calculations with numbers invented by pagan Indians; and create computer graphics, medical imaging, and designs for buildings and bridges using geometry formalized by pagan Greeks. And much of our philosophy (and much of that drawn upon by early Christians, mind you) was generated by pagans such as Aristotle and Plato. Should we "go Taliban" and burn all their works -- and other books thus influenced? A pious Christian must believe that pagans could not have had the whole Truth, but only an ignorant Christian would believe they had no Truth.

As for the truth of Jesus's birth, He likely was not born on December 25. And pious Christian scholars have known this since long before the Christmasphobes learned a bit of history. Yet it didn't stop them -- and shouldn't stop any educated person -- from celebrating Christmas.

George Washington was born on February 22, yet we commemorate his birthday the Monday before. Now, I've yet to hear someone say, "This is a fraud! I shall not yield to this distortion of history, and I'll have you know, Sir, that I intend to show up at work on February 15 -- same as always. Stick that in your revisionist pipe!" I fully expect the Christmasphobes to take this principled stand.

Then, many of us have had relatives who -- bowing to logistical realities, perhaps -- decided to have a child's major birthday celebration on a Saturday or Sunday before or after his actual birthday. Yet I should think the Christmasphobes, finding this intolerable, would look the little tyke in the eye and say, "I will not be attending your birthday party, and you shall get no presents from me! I find the historicity of this celebration suspect!" Please, Christmasphobes, stick to your guns. Don't let a few tears deter you.

Yet if you're a believing Christian and you wouldn't do this to Washington or a young relative, why would you do it to He who you claim is your savior? Remember, too, that with a president or child, we at least know precisely when his birthday is. But since this isn't true of Jesus, the argument against celebrating the Nativity on the 25^th because it "probably isn't the actual day of the Lord's birth" carries even less weight than a corresponding argument would with respect to Washington or little Johnny.

Besides, it's hard to even take the argument seriously. After all, the Christmasphobes do not propose to celebrate the Nativity on what they consider a more historically authentic day.  They simply refuse to celebrate it at all.

The bottom line here, as it is with all birthday celebrations, is not when Jesus was born.

It is that He was born.

And what of whether or not Christmas is biblical? Even if a person subscribes to Sola Scriptura, he should know that tradition precedes the Gospels (not written until 65-80 A.D.). He should know that the present canon of the New Testament wasn't compiled until the year 397 A.D. -- after the institution of Christmas. He should know that there is nothing in Scripture forbidding tradition. There are, however, passages indicating the legitimacy of tradition, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which states, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter [emphasis mine]."

Tragically, we've not been holding to traditions. And in the assault on them, the Left and culturally imperialistic foreign elements have now been shamefully joined by some on the "Right." I can take consolation only in the knowledge that these renders of civilization, who have chosen most odious bedfellows, are not fellow Christians. After all, how do you describe someone who rejects a faith's two highest holy days?

As some among us transition from heresy to apostasy, we have to wonder if any parts of their Christianity will remain sacrosanct to them. Perhaps these lost souls will, somewhere on this road to Perdition, dispense with Jesus himself. And in a way, this is what they have already done.   

I wish you all a very merry and blessed Christmas.                  

Contact Selwyn Duke.

[Petronski]

There is no legitimate Christianity?

Anywhere?

[Petronski]

Do you profess to be a Christian?

[Zionist Conspirator]

So let me get this straight: Because I don’t buy into Replacement Theology therefore I am automatically anti-God, anti-American, anti-christian, anti-religion?

Yep. Chr*stianity is the religion of the "west," therefore all "westerners" are supposed to be chr*stians--and not just any kind of chr*stian, but the kind that has "created and sustained our civilization." Which is a very relativistic and utilitarian view of religion to take.

There's nothing in the "new testament" about celebrating 12/25. Meanwhile, the Hebrew Bible is full of holidays that supposedly "Bible-loving" chr*stians are wholly ignorant of.

I'll stand with the Bible.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>Yah'shua is a Jew so is Peter, and all of the apostles including Paul.

And since they believe Jesus is Christ, they are all Christians...Catholic Saints and fathers of the Catholic Church.

Or do you reject the clear teaching of Paul in Romans ?

Of course not. I reject your contorted, excruciatingly bizarre personal interpretation of Scripture (or, that is, your redacted version of Scripture).

The word "followers of the Christ" is Gentile Greek.

The Jews who followed the Jewish Messiah became Messianic Jews.

You might want to ask the Ru'ach HaKodesh to illuminate Romans 11.

Very specifically: Romans 11 where Paul discusses who is grafted into whom.

NAsbU Romans 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off,
and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them
and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,


NAsbU Romans 11:19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off
so that I might be grafted in."

Paul warns against the pride of a Gentile follower of Yah'shua.

NAsbU Romans 11:22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God;
to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness,
if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

NAsbU Romans 11:23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief,
will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

A Jew who comes to know the Jewish Messiah for their salvation
does not become a Christian,
They become a "called out one", a member of the Ekklesia.
They become a Messianic Jew.
The L-rd's name ( SHEM ) is not je-zeus;
it is Yah'shua ( YHvH is my salvation )


NAsbU Romans 10:13 for "WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."

Which is why you must call on His Name for salvation.
See Exod. 15:2; 2 Sam. 23:5; Job 19:25 Ps. 18:2; 19:14; 62:1, 7; 118:14 Isa. 12:2; Isa 49:6; Isa 54:8

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Uri’el-2012]

Do you profess to be a Christian?

I follow the Jewish Messiah: Yah'shua

I call on His NAME for salvation : YHvH is my salvation !

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[brent13a]

Duke says at the beginning of his bigoted article: This less well-known attack could ultimately prove more damaging than the usual atheistic assaults. And it's embraced by religionists themselves.

So yes, his little whiney diatribe DOES include anyone under this moniker "christmasphobe". Whether they believe n Jesus the Son of G-d or not, to Duke it doesn't matter, you don't believe christmas is a legitimate biblical holiday then you are anti-christian, anti-god, anti-religion, and anti-american. In Dukes bigoted world that makes total sense.

[Petronski]

The L-rd's name ( SHEM ) is not je-zeus....

Oh good grief.

So you do not profess to be a Christian?

[Uri’el-2012]

One day you will come to know that membership
in any man made enterprise does not save.

Only when you seek salvation through repentance
by calling on the NAME: Yah'shua will your prayers be answered.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Uri’el-2012]

There is no legitimate Christianity?

Anywhere?

There will always be a remnant to follow and worship YHvH,
despite the persecution by the pagans.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Petronski]

One day you will come to know that membership in any man made enterprise does not save.

Congratulations, you agree with the Catholic Church (even though you're not Christian).

[brent13a]

"...even though you're not Christian

But does that make Uri’el-2012 ANTI-God, ANTI-Jesus, ANTI-american, ANTI-conservative and in league with atheists and progressive-liberals?

Because that is exactly what Duke is stating, rather emphatically.

Because a person may chose to call The Father and The Son by different names and chose to recognize different "holidays" makes them "non-christian" thereby means they are evil.......according to many including Duke.

There is no other way to take the article than in that way.

[oldenuff2no]

I lived in several different European countries while in the military. I had the opportunity to read several different slants on biblical history and they do differ.
First, I would rather live in this Christian nation above any other nation on the face of this earth.
I have family and family friends who vehemently object when I even discuss the things I have read elsewhere. If it does not fit their idea or Christianity then it can not be true or even talked about.
For instance. The puritans had a quarrel with the kings government in England. These God fearing folks had passed a bunch of local laws that were very strict according to their religion. They imposed these laws on all who passed through the area. Some of the punishment were severe. They representatives of the king paid them a visit and told them that there were laws of the land, made by the king that were to be used and not theirs. (This was nothing more than a small Cult making up their own laws) So these religious people left because they thought they were being persecuted. Our history books will tell you that these people then came to the new world to escape this persecution. Not what happened. First they went to Holland and had the same problem. In fact they were encouraged to leave in very strong language. They departed Holland in three ships, one of them in very bad condition. After departure they had to stop in England abandoning one vessel. They reshuffled the the remaining passengers and left about a third of them behind in the UK promising to return for them post haste. That never happened. Upon arrival in the new world these settlers had a ruff time but persisted and became established. The next notable event from this community was the Salem Witch Hunts. Most Christians in this nation claim their heritage through these poor persecuted religious souls paying no attention to real documented history and some of the things they did along the way. In the view of these narrow minded people their ancestors could have done no wrong so they just choose to ignore documented history from several different nations. In place of this document history they just make thing up. Our history books are full of their "persecution fairy tail."

[Paladins Prayer]

I don’t think Duke said anyone was evil. He simply said that the people who are attacking Christmas by saying it’s a pagan holiday are in league with the atheists and libtards who are attacking Christmas. Why? Because they’re both ATTACKING Christmas.

You have no right to try to destroy one of our major traditions. You should be ashamed of yourself and you should stop.

[Vanders9]

I’m not sure “bigoted” really applies here. A bigot is someone who refuses to change their opinions in the light of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and as the author hasn’t had a chance to come back to your objections, I dont really see how you can assume he is bigoted (unless, of course, you have had prior dealings with him. Personally, Ive never heard of him before).

I honestly think you might be reading too much into this quote you give. The impression I get from it is that he is saying atheists are always having a go at Christians (hey what else is new) but on this particular point they are being aided (possibly unwittingly) by some of the religously minded (he doesnt specify whether they are RT or not incidentally) who tacitly accept the arguments that the atheists are presenting. I think he has a point there - I certainly was prepared to accept arguments that Christmas was originally a Pagan festival. It didnt matter to me, because I dont care what the pagans celebrated. I personally am celebrating the coming of the saviour. But, as he points out, does this “christmas was originally a pagan festival” theory actually hold any water? It could be another urban myth - you know, people say it so often that it kind of becomes true, because everybody thinks its true.

[Vanders9]

...and with the protestant churches too (well most of them anyway).

[Vanders9]

I think the point is that at the time stables WERE in caves.

[brent13a]

does this “christmas was originally a pagan festival” theory actually hold any water?

It does, because it's historical fact (read a little bit about Emperor Constantine and how he shaped christianity and paganism into his vision of a religion). No one is saying that there isn't also historical fact to validate the bible (except atheists) because there IS historical fact to validate the bible. But if one accepts the history of the bible (and the historical fact that validates it) then one cannot also then ignore other historical fact as if it is then invalidated by the bible. That is revisionism.
It's amazing that there would be lauded conservatives who on one hand will complain that progressive liberals & democrats love to ignore aspects of US history and chose to revise US history to their ends.....yet then these same conservatives turn around and chose to accept revisionist history when it comes to other things. It is quite hypocritical.
Just because there are aspects to a religion's past that may make one uncomfortable doesn't mean those things need to be automatically accepted and defended even if it means revising history.

[Petronski]

...read a little bit about Emperor Constantine and how he shaped christianity and paganism into his vision of a religion...

Or read something TRUE about St. Constantine the Great.

[Wpin]

If there was a pagan celebration on the 25th of December...I have not seen actual evidence of this anywhere...I know that there is a Pagan winter solstice celebration, but those ended before the 25th, if there was one though...that has absolutely nothing with the Celebration of Jesus’ birth.

Oftentimes, lay people become confused by coincidence rather than correlation. There is a difference and that difference is huge. Christianity does not come from paganism or any other religion other than sharing the old testament which includes the Jewish and Muslim. The Jews for the most part believe Jesus was a man, the Muslims understand that Jesus was a Prophet.

The bible is from God, and Jesus is from God, it is that simple. Nothing more nothing less.

Merry Christmas...btw, Santa Clause is not where Jesus comes from.

[stfassisi]

The bottom line here, as it is with all birthday celebrations, is not when Jesus was born. It is that He was born.

Very nice,dear friend.

Jesus usurps pagan holidays every day of the silly human calendar because He is God and existed before a single Pagan ever existed,thus a pagan owns nothing ,especially not a calender day