Why do most "Christians" celebrate Xmas in a pagan way?

[David_TheMan]

/

Ancient Judaism was as "soft" on monotheism as ancient Christianity was. Look into how the Old Testament and other pre-Christian Jewish sources talk about the abiding presence of God on Earth (Shekaniah), the Spirit of God, the presence of God in the Torah, Wisdom as God, Logos as God, etc. What you think of as "hard monotheism" didn't even exist until Judaism moved in that direction in direct reaction to Christian claims about the spirit of divinity in Jesus, and Mohammed then took the Jewish view over his misunderstanding of the Christian view when developing Islam.






The claims of Christmas being a Christian face on saturnalia are based on old and flimsy research. There's little if any evidence for it other than the shared date. Saturnalia was still being practiced as a separate holiday long after Christmas started, and the path that each holiday took to end up on December 25th is disputed and not necessarily the least bit connected (in fact, there was a 3rd separate holiday that ended up on December 25th as well).

Did the Romans Invent Christmas? | History Today

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society


The idea that Christmas is simply a Christian face on Saturnalia is still a popular narrative because pop historians love such narratives. But the truth is a lot more complicated - like all juxtapositions of culture, there were likely influences in both directions, but a lot can be attributed to coincidence is often shading with false associations (human brains love pushing patterns together whenever they can even when there's nothing there - that's how astrology developed) and we often obscure deeper roots with the trading of superficial add-ons.

There's another article which goes pretty well into the evidence we have for the origin of the dating of Saturnia - long story short is that there's solid evidence of the Church considering the conception of Jesus to have been on March 25th which predates any evidence of anyone at all celebrating Saturnalia on December 25th - but I can't find it right now. I'll ask my history/linguistics friend to send it to me again.

You sure about that?
How did the Romans celebrate ‘Christmas’?

Seneca [who died in AD 62] complained that the mob went out of control “in pleasantries”, and Pliny the Younger wrote in one of his letters that he holed up in his study while the rest of the household celebrated.

As might be expected, the early Christian authorities objected to the festivities as well.

It wasn’t until the late fourth century that the church fathers could agree on the date of Christ’s birth – unlike the pagan Romans, Christians tended to give no importance to anyone’s birthday. The big day in the Christian religious calendar was Easter.

Nevertheless, eventually the church settled on 25 December as the date of Christ’s nativity. For the Christians, it was a holy day, not a holiday, and they wanted the period to be sombre and distinguished from the pagan Saturnalia traditions such as gambling, drinking, and of course, most of all, worshipping a pagan god!

But their attempts to ban Saturnalia were not successful, as it was so popular. As late as the eighth century, church authorities complained that even people in Rome were still celebrating the old pagan customs associated with the Saturnalia and other winter holidays.

 

[JahFocus CS]

Ancient Judaism was as "soft" on monotheism as ancient Christianity was. Look into how the Old Testament and other pre-Christian Jewish sources talk about the abiding presence of God on Earth (Shekaniah), the Spirit of God, the presence of God in the Torah, Wisdom as God, Logos as God, etc. What you think of as "hard monotheism" didn't even exist until Judaism moved in that direction in direct reaction to Christian claims about the spirit of divinity in Jesus, and Mohammed then took the Jewish view over his misunderstanding of the Christian view when developing Islam.

I agree 100%, but Christians generally do not acknowledge that historical development.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

/


You sure about that?
How did the Romans celebrate ‘Christmas’?

I agree with everything in that quote. Perhaps you're either misunderstanding me or misunderstanding the article - which part of what you quoted do you feel contradicted what I said?

I agree 100%, but Christians generally do not acknowledge that historical development.

Yes, and I would say that Western thought, which often has far more "logical" rigidity than Eastern thought, has distorted the Christian understanding of what divinity and the trinity mean as well.

 

[David_TheMan]

I agree with everything in that quote. Perhaps you're either misunderstanding me or misunderstanding the article - which part of what you quoted do you feel contradicted what I said?






Yes, and I would say that Western thought, which often has far more "logical" rigidity than Eastern thought, has distorted the Christian understanding of what divinity and the trinity mean as well.

My contention that Christmas as we know it was a Christian attempt to override Saturnalia specifically.
ther was no reason to even place the christmas during that time of year, it was done with a specific purpose and as time moved on it essentially merged a christian façade of pretty much pagan traditions, instead of stamping out those traditions or replacing it as intended, which was my initial statement that you seemed to disagree with.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

My contention that Christmas as we know it was a Christian attempt to override Saturnalia specifically.

But you don't have any evidence for that. You shoe that church authorities didn't like Saturnalia - well, yes, that's very common that authorities of one religion aren't fond of the practices of another religion. That tells you nothing about how it originated.

Saturnalia was the feast dedicated to the Roman god Saturn. Established around 220 B.C., this feast was originally celebrated on December 17. Eventually the feast was extended to last an entire week, ending on December 23. The supposed connection to Christmas is based on the proximity of the two festivals to each other.

This can be found repeatedly on the Internet. In his article Saturnalia: The Reason We Celebrate Christmas in December, columnist Mark Whittington explains:

It has been suggested that Christians in the 4th Century assigned December 25th as Christ's birthday (and hence Christmas) because pagans already observed this day as a holiday. In this way the problem of eliminating an already popular holiday would be sidestepped, thus making the Christianizing of the population easier.

If the suggestion were correct, one would expect to find at least a single reference by early Christians to support it. Instead we find scores of quotations from Church Fathers indicating a desire to distance themselves from pagan religions.

ther was no reason to even place the christmas during that time of year,

Yes there was - there are myriad possible reasons, mostly centered around an early Christian desire to link the conception of Christ to his death at Passover and the creation of the world.

According to Dr. Kelly's research, summarized in his books The Origins of Christmas, and The World of the Early Christians, the main reason early Christians chose December 25th for the date of Christmas relates to two significant and symbolic dates: the date of the creation of the world, and the vernal equinox. According to some Christians, both events happened on March 25th. Early Christian writer Sextus Julius Africanus (220 AD) speculated that the world was created on March 25th, based on his chronology of Jewish and Christian history, presumably contained in his Chronographia. So he suggested that Christ became incarnate on that date; this makes perfect symbolic sense, since at the Incarnation, the new creation began. According to Julius, since the Word of God became incarnate from the moment of his conception, this meant that, after 9 months in the Virgin Mary's womb, Jesus was born on December 25. The anonymous author of the work De Pascha Computus, likely written in the 3rd century, and attributed to Cyprian, too speculated the world was created on March 25th. However, since the sun was created on the fourth day of creation, the author speculates that Christ was born on March 28th, not March 25th. Thus, unlike Julius, this author conceives of Christ's incarnation beginning at Christ's birth, rather than his conception. How did this anonymous author reach his conclusions about the date of creation? Based on a synthesis of the time of Passover, the vernal equinox, and a prophecy from Malachi about the "Sun of Righteousness." While the scope of the influence of Julius and the anonymous author of De Pascha Computus upon their peers is unknown, nonetheless, we encounter reasons why the date of December 25th was chosen for the birth date of Jesus that are rooted in Christian thought.

According to Get Religion, Hippolytus of Rome, writing around 225 AD, close to the time of Julius, may also mention the date of Christmas as December 25 ("eight days before the kalends of January"), in Commentary on Daniel. However, there is debate as to whether this line is genuine, or an interpolation in the genuine text of Hippolytus. The best manuscripts of Hippolytus mention both December 25th and April 2nd as possible dates for the birth of Jesus, although the latter could refer to his conception, which would then place his birth in December. In addition to Kelly's books, The Origins of the Liturgical Year provides much insight into the speculation discussed here.

There are other good, Jewish, Christian, and biblical reasons why Christians chose the date of December 25th. One is based on the estimated date of the death of Jesus, which some early Christians speculated happened on Friday, March 25th. Incidentally, this is historically impossible, since March 25th would not have been a Friday the year Jesus likely died. Nonetheless, based on the Jewish idea of the "integral age," that great prophets were conceived on the same date as their death, these early Christian writers thought that Jesus, who died on March 25th, was also conceived that date. Again, if we assume nine months in the womb, this means he was born on December 25th. The work De Solstitia et Aequinoctia Conceptionis et Nativitatis Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae, falsely attributed to John Chrysostom, supports this view:

Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth day of the kalends of April in the month of March, which is the day of the passion of the Lord, and of his conception. For on the day he was conceived, on the same day he suffered (quoted in Stuhlman, Redeeming the Time).

Scholar William Tighe makes a strong case for his theory in his essay Calculating Christmas, which is apparently similar to arguments made by Louis Duchesne and Andre Wilmart years earlier. This line of speculation was occurring about the same time other Christians were speculating about the date of Christ's birth based on the date of creation. Perhaps this interest in December 25th among early Christians is because they were already celebrating Christmas on this date?

Yet another reason for choosing the date of December 25 is advanced by 4th century bishop and writer Saint John Chrysostom. According to this article from the North County Times, John Chrysostom reasoned:

Luke 1 says Zechariah was performing priestly duty in the Temple when an angel told his wife Elizabeth she would bear John the Baptist. During the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary learned about her conception of Jesus and visited Elizabeth "with haste."

The 24 classes of Jewish priests served one week in the Temple, and Zechariah was in the eighth class. Rabbinical tradition fixed the class on duty when the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and, calculating backward from that, Zechariah's class would have been serving Oct. 2-9 in 5 B.C. So Mary's conception visit six months later might have occurred the following March and Jesus' birth nine months afterward.

Thus, for John Chrysostom, the date of December 25 was based on Scripture and Jewish tradition. While it is possible John was mistaken, this demonstrates that Christians at the time were choosing the dates of feasts based on Scripture, not paganism.

David Morrison explains yet another possibility, again providing a rationale for the choice of December 25:

The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary "in the sixth month" of the Jewish year...that is, in Adar (our February/March). Count nine months for the pregnancy and you come to Kislev (our November/December). According to some Church Fathers, Jesus was born during Channukah. Therefore, Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Virgin Mary in Bethlehem of Judaea in the Jewish month of Kislev (December) during the Festival of Lights. And I say likely on what is December 25th.

So, we have multiple reasons why ancient Christians chose December 25th as the date to celebrate the birth of Jesus. And while we may not agree with the reasoning behind the choice of December 25th, nonetheless, there are no pagan conspiracies at work, and no evil machinations of the emperor Constantine, just solid Christian symbolic reasoning. This is not surprising, considering Christians of the time were very concerned about the influence of paganism, and took great pains (even giving their lives) to avoid worshiping or celebrating non-Christian gods. Besides, virtually every historical and Apostolic Christian church celebrates the birth of Jesus on December 25 (those using the Gregorian calendar that is), and it is highly unlikely every Church in every region caved into pagan influence so readily. While all of these explanations are certainly subject to questions and certain criticisms, they certainly are worth exploring.

At this point, you may be asking, "but wasn't Christmas chosen to counter pagan festivals?" Well, yes, in a sense, but not in the same way that the anti-Christmas crowd claims. According to Dr. Kelly, Christians of the late third and early fourth centuries had been engaged in a propaganda war with pagans since the Emperor Aurelian established the Sol Invictus, the feast of the unconquered Sun, on December 25th. For Christians, Jesus is the true Sun, the Sun of Righteousness (a title derived from Malachi 4:2). In fact, Aurelian may have established the Sol Invictus because of the rising popularity of Christianity, and may have established the date of the Sol Invictus in response to Christian celebrations already occurring that day! Since Christians probably accounted for ten percent of the population of Rome at the time, this is not far-fetched in the least.

Note that all the Christian references to the consideration of March 25th as the conception of Christ and December 25th as the birth of Christ predate any pagan references to the exact date of December 25th being used for a particular festival.

it was done with a specific purpose

You're stating this without one shred of evidence - not the slightest tiny shred that this was the "specific purpose" that the date coincidence happened with. And you can't even prove which one happened first.

Again, Saturnalia and that Solar festival were also both on the same day. Was one an attempt to override the other? Which was which?

A manuscript known as the Chronography of 354 shows the birth of Sol Invictus being celebrated on December 25. Given the fact that the Mithraists equated their god with Sol in one way or another, it is understandable that they may have appropriated the date as their own. The problem for the skeptic is that no evidence exists to suggest that Aurelian was a Mithraist, or that he even had Mithraism in mind when he instituted the feast of Sol Invictus. The connection of Mithra to December 25 is only coincidental.

The deathblow to both the Mithras and Sol Invictus parallels is that the Chronography of 354 is the earliest mention of any pagan god being celebrated on December 25. The celebration of the birth of Christ by Christians is also mentioned on the calendar as having been celebrated on that day, which diminishes the likelihood that the pagan feast came first. At the very least, it negates the claim that it can be proved from the historical record that any December 25 pagan festival predates the Christian tradition.

So you have no historical evidence for your position, just conjecture.

and as time moved on it essentially merged a christian façade of pretty much pagan traditions, instead of stamping out those traditions or replacing it as intended, which was my initial statement that you seemed to disagree with.

There are lots of pagan traditions that have gotten wrapped into Christmas - I don't disagree with that at all. I said as much in my post on the first page from forever ago. What I disagree with is whether that's "essentially" what Christmas is or that anyone can show that's how it started.



Again, more references to take seriously. There are many "history" articles on the internet that make general claims about events without sources. What are the actual sources of the time that demonstrate their case though?

Touchstone Archives: Calculating Christmas

Why December 25?

Why is Christmas Celebrated on December 25?

Did the Romans Invent Christmas? | History Today

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society

 

[Dr. Sebi Jr.]

Because when the Catholic Church was trying to convert people they allowed them to continue with much of their cultural traditions. That's how you end up with stuff like the celtic cross.

You're a Khazar impostor. The real Irish were BLACK.

 

[David_TheMan]

But you don't have any evidence for that. You shoe that church authorities didn't like Saturnalia - well, yes, that's very common that authorities of one religion aren't fond of the practices of another religion. That tells you nothing about how it originated.








Yes there was - there are myriad possible reasons, mostly centered around an early Christian desire to link the conception of Christ to his death at Passover and the creation of the world.



Note that all the Christian references to the consideration of March 25th as the conception of Christ and December 25th as the birth of Christ predate any pagan references to the exact date of December 25th being used for a particular festival.






You're stating this without one shred of evidence - not the slightest tiny shred that this was the "specific purpose" that the date coincidence happened with. And you can't even prove which one happened first.

Again, Saturnalia and that Solar festival were also both on the same day. Was one an attempt to override the other? Which was which?



So you have no historical evidence for your position, just conjecture.






There are lots of pagan traditions that have gotten wrapped into Christmas - I don't disagree with that at all. I said as much in my post on the first page from forever ago. What I disagree with is whether that's "essentially" what Christmas is or that anyone can show that's how it started.



Again, more references to take seriously. There are many "history" articles on the internet that make general claims about events without sources. What are the actual sources of the time that demonstrate their case though?

Touchstone Archives: Calculating Christmas

Why December 25?

Why is Christmas Celebrated on December 25?

Did the Romans Invent Christmas? | History Today

How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Society

I don't understand why you reposted what saturnalia was we have no disagreement on what it is and who started it.

There is no reason to have Christianity placed where it did, passover wasn't practiced in the jewish community during december so to claim that makes no sense, passover is March or April, this was put around the time span of Saturnalia for a reason, and its not out of bounds or the work of poor research to say it was an attempt by early christian to "counter program" a pagan holiday.

As for your long link, it lists nothing definitive and it doesn't address anything I posted, which isn't that its a evil decision to undermine christianity with paganism, just part of a christian tradition of try to expand by claiming connection with local traditions were christianity in disguise. I know Paul was a very big practicioner of this type of ministry.

Saturnalia clearly occured before Christianity even existed so to say we don't know which one occured first doesn't make sense unless you are referring to something else.

I seriously don't know what you can even disagree about

 

[Young/Nacho\Drawz]

Christmas is a roman catholic tradition. Christmas = Christ Mass
Holiday = holy day
St. Nicholas is a Roman Catholic saint.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Nicholas of Myra

Just like St. Patrick and St. Valentine. Christianity and Roman Catholicism are two different things, however the later has the world thinking that they are one in the same.

Most people who "go to church" are really going to a building which nines times out of ten is a corporation set up under the government. The same government that Christmas a national holiday. Everyone has ignorantly engaged in some form of Roman Catholicism, not just Christians.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

David, you've always got me making faces at your posts, because you seem to be really deficient in understanding any sort of logical argument.

I don't understand why you reposted what saturnalia was we have no disagreement on what it is and who started it.

Because the DATE for Saturnalia listed in that post was not December 25th, at least not coming from any resource that predates when Christmas had already been established on that date?

There is no reason to have Christianity placed where it did, passover wasn't practiced in the jewish community during december so to claim that makes no sense, passover is March or April,

The passover is connected to Christ's passion, which occurred at Passover, which is connected to the tradition that prophets were conceived at the same time as their death. Therefore, Christ's birth would be 9 months AFTER the passover date. Like I already quoted:

There are other good, Jewish, Christian, and biblical reasons why Christians chose the date of December 25th. One is based on the estimated date of the death of Jesus, which some early Christians speculated happened on Friday, March 25th. Incidentally, this is historically impossible, since March 25th would not have been a Friday the year Jesus likely died. Nonetheless, based on the Jewish idea of the "integral age," that great prophets were conceived on the same date as their death, these early Christian writers thought that Jesus, who died on March 25th, was also conceived that date. Again, if we assume nine months in the womb, this means he was born on December 25th. The work De Solstitia et Aequinoctia Conceptionis et Nativitatis Nostri Iesu Christi et Iohannis Baptistae, falsely attributed to John Chrysostom, supports this view:

Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth day of the kalends of April in the month of March, which is the day of the passion of the Lord, and of his conception. For on the day he was conceived, on the same day he suffered (quoted in Stuhlman, Redeeming the Time).

This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder why you have such trouble following these types of discussions. Read what I type carefully. Read the sources carefully. You miss obvious things like not following the connection between March 25th and December 25th, and it becomes a big waste of both of our time.

You claimed, "There is no reason to have Christmas placed where it was", when I just quoted a thousand-word passage giving you four different reasons and gave you five links backing all that up. You can dispute the reasons, if you have reasons for it. But you deny they even exist, which is just silly. They exist, they are clearly stated, and the receipts for the early Christians mentioning them predate any mention of Saturnalia being moved to December 25th.

this was put around the time span of Saturnalia for a reason, and its not out of bounds or the work of poor research to say it was an attempt by early christian to "counter program" a pagan holiday.

It's poor research if you make the claim without any actual evidence from the time period in question to back it up.

Now you've moved from Christmas being "on the date of Saturnalia" to being "around the date of Saturnalia". But again, you have no evidence for that whatsoever except that they've relatively close on the calendar. You don't have any evidence that Saturnalia was on that exact date first, you don't have any evidence that Christmas was put on that date for that reason, and you have tons of receipts showing that the Christians had other reasons for doing it.

As for your long link, it lists nothing definitive and it doesn't address anything I posted, which isn't that its a evil decision to undermine christianity with paganism, just part of a christian tradition of try to expand by claiming connection with local traditions were christianity in disguise.

It has nothing "definitive", but you have absolutely nothing. When there is "nothing definitive" (as is true for the internal reasoning behind most historical events) then strong evidence is better than no evidence.

Saturnalia clearly occured before Christianity even existed so to say we don't know which one occured first doesn't make sense unless you are referring to something else.

I seriously don't know what you can even disagree about

You really don't know the disagreement? You claimed:

christmas is literally a christian face on saturnalia.

Now you've shown that you have literallly no evidence for that other than "Their dates were close together".

My counter-argument is that the exact date of December 25th has better receipts for being a Christmas date first before that exact date was used for Saturnalia, that there were clear reasons given at the time for using that date that had nothing to do with making it "close" to the day of Saturnalia, and that otherwise you have nothing.

You haven't provided a single historical cite from the time (the 200s or 300s or even 400s) that "Christmas is literally a christian face on saturnalia", or that the the Christmas date was chosen to match saturnalia, or that there was anything other than coincidental connections between them.

That's the disagreement.

 

[David_TheMan]

David, you've always got me making faces at your posts, because you seem to be really deficient in understanding any sort of logical argument.





Because the DATE for Saturnalia listed in that post was not December 25th, at least not coming from any resource that predates when Christmas had already been established on that date?







The passover is connected to Christ's passion, which occurred at Passover, which is connected to the tradition that prophets were conceived at the same time as their death. Therefore, Christ's birth would be 9 months AFTER the passover date. Like I already quoted:



This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder why you have such trouble following these types of discussions. Read what I type carefully. Read the sources carefully. You miss obvious things like not following the connection between March 25th and December 25th, and it becomes a big waste of both of our time.

You claimed, "There is no reason to have Christmas placed where it was", when I just quoted a thousand-word passage giving you four different reasons and gave you five links backing all that up. You can dispute the reasons, if you have reasons for it. But you deny they even exist, which is just silly. They exist, they are clearly stated, and the receipts for the early Christians mentioning them predate any mention of Saturnalia being moved to December 25th.






It's poor research if you make the claim without any actual evidence from the time period in question to back it up.

Now you've moved from Christmas being "on the date of Saturnalia" to being "around the date of Saturnalia". But again, you have no evidence for that whatsoever except that they've relatively close on the calendar. You don't have any evidence that Saturnalia was on that exact date first, you don't have any evidence that Christmas was put on that date for that reason, and you have tons of receipts showing that the Christians had other reasons for doing it.






It has nothing "definitive", but you have absolutely nothing. When there is "nothing definitive" (as is true for the internal reasoning behind most historical events) then strong evidence is better than no evidence.






You really don't know the disagreement? You claimed:



Now you've shown that you have literallly no evidence for that other than "Their dates were close together".

My counter-argument is that the exact date of December 25th has better receipts for being a Christmas date first before that exact date was used for Saturnalia, that there were clear reasons given at the time for using that date that had nothing to do with making it "close" to the day of Saturnalia, and that otherwise you have nothing.

You haven't provided a single historical cite from the time (the 200s or 300s or even 400s) that "Christmas is literally a christian face on saturnalia", or that the the Christmas date was chosen to match saturnalia, or that there was anything other than coincidental connections between them.

That's the disagreement.

we are going in circles, we disagree, I'll just leave it as that. No use in arguing at each other.
Have a merry christmas

 

[SwizzLake]

The pagan origins of Christmas, my man @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited can you shed a light on this?

 

[DonFrancisco]

Symbolism is only as powerful as the collective society gives it. Culture and organize religion is shaped by history and past traditions. You see this in Latin America with Catholics adopting the beliefs of the Aztecs, Incas, etc unto their belief system.

Christianity is following the teaching of brotherly love and respect as a way to achieve inner peace. These are the central themes of the new testament.

 

[Shogun]

Theres no big mystery or conspiracy. Human culture takes different form over time…some traditions stay, some die, some new traditions are introduced and molded into old ones, etc.

If you put any cultural tradition to the test you’ll find the same.