Christmas is not pagan

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I don't have to.

/thread

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Oh, the irony.

We have a man on a blog who goes by the title "The Very Reverend Arch-Priest" and "Father", against the teachings and commandments of Christ, no less, regarding abstaining from ecclesiastical titles, lecturing us about how the Mass to Christ isn't "pagan".

Or you could always eat the meat and spit out the bones, which is what you would have to do no matter whose opinion you consider, unless you only learn from yourself or those completely in agreement.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I don't have to. That would be like me saying, "I'm not a murderer." It is improper for you to demand that I "make my case." If YOU think Christmas is pagan, you have to prove your charge. But the links that have already been posted pretty much clear it up. Celebrating the incarnation is fie to do n any day. There is no mystical power in any day that makes celebrating the incarnation on that day wrong. Besides, it was Pagans that actually tried to supplant Christmas, which is explained in one of the links.

Come now, Brother. You make a claim, you support the claim with evidence. Pretty simple.

You wrote that pagans attempted to steal Christmas from Christians. I've never heard that before. I would like you to provide some historical proof. You say you don't have to do that.

As far as the link that was shared, I find it to be something of a ridiculous polemic full of circular reasoning.

He states December 25 was chosen because it's nine months after March 25:

Rather, December 25 was arrived at because it was exactly nine months after March 25, when the Annunciation was being celebrated, which is the feast of Christ’s conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

And pray, tell, why was March 25 chosen for the celebration of the Annunciation?

The author of the blog links to this page:

https://www.touchstonemag.com/archiv...t=true#therest

In that article, the following quote is given for dating Christ's conception in Mary's womb on March 25th:

So in the East we have April 6th, in the West, March 25th. At this point, we have to introduce a belief that seems to have been widespread in Judaism at the time of Christ, but which, as it is nowhere taught in the Bible, has completely fallen from the awareness of Christians. The idea is that of the “integral age” of the great Jewish prophets: the idea that the prophets of Israel died on the same dates as their birth or conception.

This notion is a key factor in understanding how some early Christians came to believe that December 25th is the date of Christ’s birth. The early Christians applied this idea to Jesus, so that March 25th and April 6th were not only the supposed dates of Christ’s death, but of his conception or birth as well. There is some fleeting evidence that at least some first- and second-century Christians thought of March 25th or April 6th as the date of Christ’s birth, but rather quickly the assignment of March 25th as the date of Christ’s conception prevailed.

I direct your attention to the emboldened text above. Nowhere taught in the Bible. Where does the idea of "integral age" come from? The author claims it comes from Judaism.

But if you go to this link:

https://jimmyakin.com/2014/11/integral-age-update.html

You will find someone who did their homework enough to show that the claim of integral age in Judaism is false, and was made up as a term by the author (William Tighe), and that there is only a possibly hint or reference regarding Moses in the Talmud.

So, why then should anyone think Jesus was conceived and/or born on March 25? Because it is assumed He died on that day. Other than that, however, there is no reason whatsoever. The "integral age" theory is a made-up contrivance to justify, post-hoc, celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th.

So, what else might we surmise regarding March 25? Allegedly it is the day Mary conceived Christ in her womb.

But what proof of that is offered?

There is absolutely no proof offered anywhere, Biblical or otherwise.

So, that ends the idea of Christ being born on December 25th. It therefore falls upon the shoulders of those who would choose that day in particular to show why they honor that day as the day Christ was born, apart from religious tradition not otherwise empirically validated by any evidence whatsoever.

[votivesoul]

As for why March 25th was believed to be the date of Christ's death, we owe that idea to Tertullian.

See: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0308.htm

Therefore, when these times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place libations and sacrifices, which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place celebrated; for the unction, too, was exterminated in that place after the passion of Christ. For it had been predicted that the unction should be exterminated in that place; as in the Psalms it is prophesied, They exterminated my hands and feet. And the suffering of this extermination was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Cæsar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April, on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses. Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, His blood be upon us, and upon our children; and, If you dismiss him, you are not a friend of Cæsar; John 19:12 in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

The "calends of April" means the 1st day of the month. So, 8 days before April 1 would be March 25th.

The question then becomes, was Tertullian correct? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on one's view of the day Jesus was crucified. Either way, he wrote the tract in circa 200AD. Even William Tighe, who was held up by the blogger writes:

It is true that the first evidence of Christians celebrating December 25th as the date of the Lord's nativity comes from Rome some years after Aurelian, in A.D. 336

So, if there is no evidence prior to 336AD that Christians were celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th, which comes well after the attestation of December 25 being used by Aurelius as the Birth of the Unconquered Sun, and since Tertullian only attempted to show the date of Christ's death, and since the integral age theory is debunked as non-existent, we have a historical record showing that Christians many decades after December 25th was established as pagan holy day called Sol Invictus, appropriating that day for their own celebration of the birth of Christ.

But nothing pagan is going on here? The idea is absurd. The evidence all points to people taking on a pagan holy day in order to repurpose it for their own ends.

Now, we can argue the legitimacy of that appropriation, and whether it actually matters or not, but to try and argue that it's a false view of history is a mistake. Even proponents of the view, by their own claims and evidence, have shown their own error, as I have laid out here.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Have you considered that he's right about more than one of those things you mention?

I have. I find the article to be a vain attempt at proving the acceptability of celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th. It is a prime example of petitio principii, or begging the question.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

Or you could always eat the meat and spit out the bones, which is what you would have to do no matter whose opinion you consider, unless you only learn from yourself or those completely in agreement.

I looked for meat, and only found bones. Rather, I didn't even find bones, just some unidentifiable but no less inedible gristle.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I looked for meat, and only found bones. Rather, I didn't even find bones, just some unidentifiable but no less inedible gristle.

So not one tiny thing you agreed with in the article? Or just "I don't like chicken" and kind of skimmed over it?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Come now, Brother. You make a claim, you support the claim with evidence. Pretty simple.

You wrote that pagans attempted to steal Christmas from Christians. I've never heard that before. I would like you to provide some historical proof. You say you don't have to do that.

As far as the link that was shared, I find it to be something of a ridiculous polemic full of circular reasoning.

He states December 25 was chosen because it's nine months after March 25:



And pray, tell, why was March 25 chosen for the celebration of the Annunciation?

The author of the blog links to this page:

https://www.touchstonemag.com/archiv...t=true#therest

In that article, the following quote is given for dating Christ's conception in Mary's womb on March 25th:



I direct your attention to the emboldened text above. Nowhere taught in the Bible. Where does the idea of "integral age" come from? The author claims it comes from Judaism.

But if you go to this link:

https://jimmyakin.com/2014/11/integral-age-update.html

You will find someone who did their homework enough to show that the claim of integral age in Judaism is false, and was made up as a term by the author (William Tighe), and that there is only a possibly hint or reference regarding Moses in the Talmud.

So, why then should anyone think Jesus was conceived and/or born on March 25? Because it is assumed He died on that day. Other than that, however, there is no reason whatsoever. The "integral age" theory is a made-up contrivance to justify, post-hoc, celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th.

So, what else might we surmise regarding March 25? Allegedly it is the day Mary conceived Christ in her womb.

But what proof of that is offered?

There is absolutely no proof offered anywhere, Biblical or otherwise.

So, that ends the idea of Christ being born on December 25th. It therefore falls upon the shoulders of those who would choose that day in particular to show why they honor that day as the day Christ was born, apart from religious tradition not otherwise empirically validated by any evidence whatsoever.

Does it even matter? The point is, there is nothing inherently wrong or evil about the day December 25. Therefore, it is as good a day as any to celebrate the birth of Messiah.

[james34]

The celebration is mostly hypocrisy, ( it is celebrating the proclaimed birthday of the individual after they died/why not celebrate his resurection? Not by lifting up a specific day, but by personally experiencing the/his resurection ) it is not a celebration of life, This "Christmas"( as far as the resurrection is concerned) else a world of sinners wouldn't be so interested in it.
Why buy gifts for someone other than the individual for whom the celebration is for? ( people buy one another gifts on Jesus's birthday)...not to mention a lack of support from the Bible on celebrating birthdays at all.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by james34

The celebration is mostly hypocrisy, ( it is celebrating the proclaimed birthday of the individual after they died/why not celebrate his resurection? Not by lifting up a specific day, but by personally experiencing the/his resurection ) it is not a celebration of life, This "Christmas"( as far as the resurrection is concerned) else a world of sinners wouldn't be so interested in it.
Why buy gifts for someone other than the individual for whom the celebration is for? ( people buy one another gifts on Jesus's birthday)...not to mention a lack of support from the Bible on celebrating birthdays at all.

Does the Bible condemn it? No. Is it a "transgression of the Law"? No.

Jesus DID partake in a feast that was NOT ordained in the Law of Moses.

BTW, why aren't you answering questions posed to yu in the Divorce and Remarriage thread?