Christians and Christmas ( also Easter)

[concerneduser]

Since the celebration of the birth of Jesus and death/ resurrection of Jesus is not in the bible after the first events actually happened. When did Christians first celebrate Christmas, and when did Christians first celebrate Easter? And why do we do it today and where did it start or come from?

 

[Detales]

Dear Concerneduser,

You have asked a real hot potato of a question. “Christmas” has been a sacred and holy date from the time that man first noticed the stars. It has, and is, fraught with meaning at every level of human experience. But as to your question, it was first, for Catholics, made into Christmas in 345 CE by Pope Julius. Up until that time the birthday of Jesus in the Church had been celebrated in Spring. That kind of made sense, as in Winter it is cold and less likely that shepherds were on watch outside at night. It is also interesting to note that December 25 is the traditional agronomic/zodiacal based religions’ celebration of the birth, resurrection, actually, of such as Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus, and several other pagan gods. Easter, its date being variable according to the vernal equinox, is similarly tied to pagan feasts, as that was when the victory of Light over dark was celebrated, again, from ancient times.

In fact, it is recorded that Pope Leo the Great, in the fifth century, had to tell Church members to stop worshiping the Sun. Constantine, the first allegedly Christian emperor, was still worshiping the Sun years after his conversion, according to the evidence of coins from his time.

These and many other data, books full, invite one to look far more closely at the third and fourth century history of our Church and its earlier actual origins. That is not to diminish in our minds or hearts, by any means, God or the Jesus story, but to put them on a more useful and honest footing.

 

[little_c]

You have asked a real hot potato of a question.

HOT potato, indeed!

It is also interesting to note that December 25 is the traditional agronomic/zodiacal based religions’ celebration of the birth, resurrection, actually, of such as Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus, and several other pagan gods.

There in lies the heat . . . lumping the birth of Jesus (not found in the Bible) with the pagan deities fore mentioned 350 years after His birth makes the motives of the Roman Catholic Church look political in nature. Specifically, how does a 4th century Pope keep the Roman Empire from crumbling, make your religion more appealing to the pagans.

 

[Detales]

And to the Christians. Bingo. That is the root of the corruption that resulted in christianism. Once you popularize an esoteric idea, it is no onlnger that idea. All you end up with is a mental prophylactic. Fortunately, it seems that people who are yet capable of critical thinking can to some degree or other get past that. Or, there is always what we can call “grace.” Then the actual meaning behind the Jesus story, in its hoary ancientness, can be seen and utilized, and yield its fruits.

 

[roger_pearse]

You have asked a real hot potato of a question. “Christmas” has been a sacred and holy date from the time that man first noticed the stars.

So it is often claimed; but you will note that those claiming it never reference their claims against primary sources. This should make us all very suspicious. Just what is special about December 25, we should ask?

In what follows I see you repeat some common myths. I’m sure you do so in good faith; but allow me to treat them as such, and ask the sort of questions of them that we should all ask.

But as to your question, it was first, for Catholics, made into Christmas in 345 CE by Pope Julius.

Again, we see this claimed a lot. But… is this true? Which ancient source says so?

It is also interesting to note that December 25 is the traditional agronomic/zodiacal based religions’ celebration of the birth, resurrection, actually, of such as Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus, and several other pagan gods.

This is untrue, and a commonly reported myth. There is no ancient source that associates Mithras with 25 Dec. Nor was Mithras resurrected.

Sol Invictus, the late Roman sun god, did have a festival on this date. Only a single text records this, the Chronography of 354 (which is online), where part 6, the Philocalian calendar, records on that date “Natalis Invicti”. This is probably the anniversary of the consecration of the temple in 274 AD, rather than a “birthday”.

Be highly sceptical about any of these claims. Most of them derive from a very ignorant book from the 19th century by a certain Kersey Graves, “Sixteen Crucifed Saviors”. This has the interesting distinction of meriting a warning on Internet Infidels about the factual errors it contains. Never just accept these claims; ask to see the primary evidence that says so. This generally is enough to put those making the claims into propellor mode.

Easter, its date being variable according to the vernal equinox, is similarly tied to pagan feasts, as that was when the victory of Light over dark was celebrated, again, from ancient times.

This too is bunk. (Note how vague the claims are. How could one check these against a primary source? This is a sure sign of rubbish going round). The date of Easter is variable because it follows the date of the Passover, which was calculated by a lunar calendar.

In fact, it is recorded that Pope Leo the Great, in the fifth century, had to tell Church members to stop worshiping the Sun.

Note again the lack of reference, and the lack of Leo’s actual words. This again should make us suspicious of manipulation. It’s worth checking. Here’s Leo’s sermon 27, the 7th sermon on the Nativity:

tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-12/Npnf2-12-187.htm#P3127_751807
Leo I:

IV. The Foolish Practice of Some Who Turn to the Sun and Bow to It is Reprehensible.

From such a system of teaching proceeds also the ungodly practice of certain foolish folk who worship the sun as it rises at the beginning of daylight from elevated positions: even some Christians think it is so proper to do this that, before entering the blessed Apostle Peter’s basilica, which is dedicated to the One Living and true God, when they have mounted the steps which lead to the raised platform, they turn round and bow themselves towards the rising sun and with bent neck do homage to its brilliant orb. We are full of grief and vexation that this should happen, which is partly due to the fault of ignorance and partly to the spirit of heathenism: because although some of them do perhaps worship the Creator of that fair light rather than the Light itself, which is His creature, yet we must abstain even flora the appearance of this observance: for if one who has abandoned the worship of gods, finds it in our own worship, will he not hark back again to this fragment of his old superstition, as if it were allowable, when he sees it to be common both to Christians and to infidels?

In this case, then the statement is OK.

Constantine, the first allegedly Christian emperor, was still worshiping the Sun years after his conversion, according to the evidence of coins from his time.

This is a misrepresentation. Constantine’s coin-types are those of the tetrarchy, to which he owed his political legitimacy. They reflect his desire to be seen as a natural successor to them. The point about his coins, tho, is not that they depict Sol Invictus – they do, at the start – but that he REMOVES this motif. It vanishes, never to reappear on Roman coins.

These and many other data, books full, invite one to look far more closely at the third and fourth century history of our Church and its earlier actual origins. That is not to diminish in our minds or hearts, by any means, God or the Jesus story, but to put them on a more useful and honest footing.

It is certainly a good idea to be well-informed; and also to check one’s facts!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Detales]

Thanks, Roger,

I wasn’t using Kelsey Graves’ book, as I know about that. I’m off to work so can’t spend much time on this now, but also consider that there are no primary sources for the Gospels. There were hundreds of versions with many variations. But as I said, faith is a prophylactic. You will see what you wish, or have been trained to. I know, I used to use pretty much the same arguments.you might. In the end, they are useless. Better to wake up now, even if you are quite convinced you are awake.

Blessings and Best,

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[roger_pearse]

Thanks, Roger,

I wasn’t using Kelsey Graves’ book, as I know about that.

Glad to help. I think few people have read Graves, but all this material derives from it. Acharya S repeated a lot of it.

consider that there are no primary sources for the Gospels.

Er, the gospels are themselves primary sources, in the usual use of the term. But I don’t see how this is relevant either way.

There were hundreds of versions with many variations. But as I said, faith is a prophylactic. You will see what you wish, or have been trained to. I know,

So it would seem, in view of the statements you make, supposedly factual but all more or less erroneous, and you make them with the utmost certainty! Your faith must be strong indeed.

But it would be a mistake to project this onto others, tho.

I used to use pretty much the same arguments.you might. In the end, they are useless. Better to wake up now, even if you are quite convinced you are awake.

I know that you are merely repeating this jibe in your sleep. But if you wake up for a moment and look at what you have just posted… haven’t you just advised someone far better informed than yourself, to whom you have offered a series of ignorant falsehoods, to “wake up”?

Rather embarassing for you, I would think.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Detales]

Glad to help. Yes, but your reply failed to “pearce” the target.

• I think few people have read Graves, but all this material derives from it.* No.

*Error, the gospels are not themselves primary sources, in the usual? use of the term. But I don’t see how this is relevant either way. * I would think that if a source is not primary, it isn’t. All that exist are non-attributable copies of whatever they might originally have been.

Your faith must be strong indeed. Actually, the material you might look at more carefully all came to me after I had come to pretty much that conclusion on my own. For me it is a matter of experience, not faith.

But it would be a mistake to project this onto others, tho Exactly what is it you think I am projecting on to others?

*I know that you are merely repeating this jibe in your sleep. But if you wake up for a moment and look at what you have just posted… haven’t you just advised someone far better informed than yourself, to whom you have offered a series of ignorant falsehoods, to “wake up”?

Rather embarassing (sic) for you, I would think.*

Well, QED my point. I came to my conclusions because I woke up from the dream of personhood, and Catholicism was a part of that. I am primarily concerned with belief as such, Catha-holcism being a sub set of that. As far as being “informed,” I have no doubt you are far better informed as to your prejudices than I am. And I have far more information about those than I care to.

And no, I am not embarrassed for you. I believe that everyone can wake up with the necessary effort or grace. Bon Chance!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

ER. Jesus was born (though nobody can say with surety the exact date.) You think that for the 33 years of His earthly life nobody celebrated His birthday? So. . .you know, the first Christians, who were usually rather concerned with not being on the short list for the latest “Christians V. Lions” tailgate parties, weren’t exactly in the position to make huge ‘deals’ out of celebrating His birth. But that doesn’t mean they ignored it.

In fact, Mass (which for Catholics is an actual participation in the Last Supper and Christ’s Death and Resurrection) was celebrated from the earliest times. It’s there in Scripture, where St. Paul tells us that people met "on the Lord’s Day’ for "the breaking of the bread.’

Christ Mass is “Christ’s Mass”. EVERY Mass is in a sense "Christ’s Mass’

Now Easter is likewise the “yearly” commemoration of Christ’s death and Resurrection. This is something that is much more ‘grounded’ in that we know from Scripture that Christ suffered at Passover. Passover is a Jewish holiday. The Jewish calendar uses the moon cycle. That’s why our Easter date ‘changes’ every year (and the Jewish Passover date changes too by our calendar. Sundays are ‘little Easters’, but every year we remember the PASCH. English, that hodgepodge of a language, calls that feast "easter’ but in other countries the word used is PASCH and much more accurately reflects that this is not based on a ‘pagan god’ but on the EVENT of Jesus’ death and resurrection at the time of the PASSOVER.

We could, if we desired, celebrate Christ’s birth on any date at all, or every day. It doesn’t really matter. Perhaps the date was picked because many pagans already were ‘used’ to some sort of celebration Dec. 25th? So what? It makes a lot of sense to ‘graft’ celebrations --just like Gentiles, if you come to think of it, were ‘grafted’ onto the Jewish 'chosen ones" in the plan of salvation. Very Scriptural, too.

But the pagans would know that, whereas before they accepted Christ they just had a general kind of idea that Zeus or Jove wanted them to be ‘nice’ and give the slaves a day off. . .AFTER they accepted CHrist and Christian teachings they’d realize that the ‘germ’ of the idea of being ‘nice’ wasn’t about Zeus or Jove. It was about GOD. Instead of giving the slaves the day off for ‘Zeus’, one realized that both slave and free person were equal in the eyes of God. Instead of giving offerings for Zeus, one would give a present to his fellow men and women, and all together, those offerings would be made to the Baby Jesus.

There’s a lot of ‘similarity’ there but the main thing was, that all the ‘nice ideas’ and stuff that people had 'before Jesus" are now understood to be FULFILLED IN AND BY JESUS.

We don’t have to ‘reinvent the wheel’. We don’t have to throw away every ‘pagan’ idea (if we did, then by golly we wouldn’t be able to grow crops, wear clothes, etc.) Um, hello people, the origin of people actually growing crops and settling down in groups had to do with PAGANS dimly realizing that there was a ‘force’ (god, gods) whom they wished to honor. You seem to have NO problem accepting the current carryover of THAT pagan practice today; why cavil at CHRISTIANS?

 

[roger_pearse]

No.

I’m afraid denial isn’t much of a reply. If you wish to disagree, please do so rationally.

Error, the gospels are not themselves primary sources, in the usual? use of the term. But I don’t see how this is relevant either way. I would think that if a source is not primary, it isn’t. All that exist are non-attributable copies of whatever they might originally have been.

Please do not change my words to make me express your opinions.

A primary source is an ancient source, on any subject of ancient history. This the gospels are. Incidentally you do not want to make the argument that copies of ancient literary texts are unreliable, as it would apply equally or worse to the classics, and so involve you in obscurantism.

Your faith must be strong indeed. Actually, the material you might look at more carefully all came to me after I had come to pretty much that conclusion on my own. For me it is a matter of experience, not faith.

I note that you don’t discuss the various errors of fact that I pointed out, tho! That renders this remark rather unfortunate. It looks as if you advanced these statements through a rather foolish faith – faith that what you wanted to believe was so. Such behaviour does your case no favours.

But it would be a mistake to project this onto others, tho Exactly what is it you think I am projecting on to others?

If you have difficulty understanding something, it will help you if you read and quote the context.

In this case you were repeating stale old jeers about faith, while yourself taking on faith various ignorant statements about ancient history. In short, you were guilty of what you were asserting about others.

*I know that you are merely repeating this jibe in your sleep. But if you wake up for a moment and look at what you have just posted… haven’t you just advised someone far better informed than yourself, to whom you have offered a series of ignorant falsehoods, to “wake up”?

Rather embarassing for you, I would think.*

Well, QED my point.<snip reiteration, impudence>

Not much of a reply, again. You don’t seem able to even read what I wrote; in each case you just ignore it or start tossing rhetoric. Do you think that helps your case?

Incidentally tossing insults about the prejudices of someone else would be more impressive if you knew what they were. Again, it seems that you have made statements based on what you hope is true, rather than on anything you actually know. This is unethical, and I would advise you not to do it. Impudence doesn’t gain respect. Knowledge and reason does, and I would advise you to acquire both before posting further.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since the celebration of the birth of Jesus and death/ resurrection of Jesus is not in the bible after the first events actually happened. When did Christians first celebrate Christmas, and when did Christians first celebrate Easter? And why do we do it today and where did it start or come from?

You are trying to make an appeal to Soia Scriptura, which is NOT a rule that Orthodox or Catholic Christians play by. This is a Protestant rule, not ours.

And yes, Christians DID celebrate the death and resurrection of Christ, seeing that this was the fulfilment of the Passover–Pascha in most European languages (by metathesis from the Hebrew word Pesach).

Only Germanic languages, such as English, use the term “Easter” or something similar.

 

[concerneduser]

Are there any documents, or descriptions of early Easter of Christmas celebrations. Puritans in New England didn’t celebrate Christmas as they thought of it as too pagan. This lead to the development of Thanksgiving- but that is another story. Anyways- are there any descriptions of any times when early Christians celebrated these things pre 300s when written into catholic cannon law? How do we even know that early Christians had what we call ‘mass’ or celebrated the resurrection or birth of Jesus at all until they decided to make them official in the 300’s. Did the apostles celebrate mass on sundays? Did they celebrate Easter and Christmas? Any “proof” of documentation of any of these- any scriptural evidence or other documents?

 

[Detales]

Dear Concerneduser,

All the reading material and internet research I have done, despite the wishes of pious friends, has shown only that the Church, like English, has been adept at adopting the customs, dates, and symbols of others. We know neither the date of Jesus birth, the disagreeing Gospels offering dates spanning about a ten year period, and we don’t know the date of the Resurrection. It is, I am afraid, all conjecture. There is, in fact, no historical data pertinent to the existence of Jesus, a surprise in the light of the Biblical claim that at His death the dead rose from their graves and walked about. I, myself, think there would be some historical residue of such an event and others, had they actually taken place. It is, as well, difficult even for scholars to distinguish if the many Roman and other depictions of sitting at a table and breaking bread are Christian or pagan. On the other hand, all of these are consistent and congruent with teachings much older than christianism.

For another view on these matters, you might read Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces and Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ and Water Into Wine. Maurice Nicoll’s The New Man, an interpretation of some of the parables and miracles of Christ may also be useful. You can also go to amazon.com/Basic-Self-Knowledge-Harry-Benjamin/dp/0877281629 and read the preface of Benjamin’s book on a rather obscure, but in my view, seminal idea about the actual nature of Christianity or christianism. An impartial study of the matter increasingly points to the inescapable idea that christianism stems from something far more wonderful and useful than the historicized version of the Jesus story, wonderful and useful as it acknowledgedly is.

 

[Detales]

Re post #10

Roger, “No” is a binary rational. Nevertheless, Here is a partial. I have pages more elsewhere of studied references, but this is a start, and in no particular order:

Ancient Egyptian Roots of Christianity & others; Moustapha Gadalla

The Shadow of the Third Century: A Revaluation of Christianity and others; AB Kuhn

A Brief History of Everything Ken Wilber

The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object Franklin Merrell-Wollf

Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism & others; Jan Assman

Wholeness and the Implicate Order David Bohm

Mystery, Myth, and Magic AA Barb

• Virgin Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology* S. Benko

The Secret Lore of Egypt and Its Impact on the West E Hornung

The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David TL Thompson

The Hero With a Thousand Faces J Campbell

The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness H Childs

Basic Self Knowledge H Benjamin

The Christian Myth: Origin, Logic, and Legacy M Burton

Jesus: The Evidence GA Wells

The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Evidence T Harpur

*The Ancient Mysteries: a Sourcebook of Ancient Texts * MW Myer

*Lost Christianities, Misquoting Jesus, and Lost Scriptures–Books That Did Not Make It into the New Testamen * all by BD Ehrman

Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians T Freke & P Gandy

I will provide more when you are done with those.

I did not change your words to express my opinions. I amended your statement so that it was more aligned with fact so you could see what that might sound like. And so far I see nor errors that are substantial. I have even agreed with your discounting of Graves, though he has some value.

~Roger*“Again, it seems that you have made statements based on what you hope is true, rather than on anything you actually know”.* Actually, it is all a verification, as I said, of what I came to know as a grace.

~Roger*“Impudence doesn’t gain respect. Knowledge and reason does, and I would advise you to acquire both before posting further.”* Strand in front of a mirror and say that to yourself a thousand times, and then write back, if you wish. What appears to you as my impudence is your own arrogance and inflexibility in examining pertinent data at the expense of your emotional investment in your faith. I guess that is to be expected.

 

[Rolltide]

How do we even know that early Christians had what we call ‘mass’ or celebrated the resurrection or birth of Jesus at all until they decided to make them official in the 300’s. Did the apostles celebrate mass on sundays? Did they celebrate Easter and Christmas? Any “proof” of documentation of any of these- any scriptural evidence or other documents?

Here’s a description of the Mass by Justin Martyr that very closely parallels the modern Mass. Items in brackets are my additions to explain which ancient parts relate to which modern parts of the Mass:
**
Justin Martyr
Selections from Apologia (c. 150 AD)**
And on the day called the Day of the Sun [Sunday] there is a gathering in one place of us all who live in cities or in the country [The Mass], and the memoirs of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows [The Liturgy of the Word]. Then, when the reader has ceased, the priest gives by word of mouth his admonition and exhortation to imitate these excellent things [The Homily]. Afterward we all rise at once and offer prayers; and as I said, when we have ceased to pray, bread is brought and wine and water, and the priest likewise offers up prayers and thanksgivings as he has the ability, and the people assent, saying “Amen.” [The Presentation of the Gifts] The distribution to each and the partaking of that for which thanks were given then take place; and to those not present a portion is sent by the hands of the deacons. Those who are well-to-do and willing give, every one giving what he will, according to his own judgment, and the collection is deposited with the priest, and he assists orphans and widows, and those who through sickness or any other cause are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers that are sojourning, and, in short, he has the care of all that are in need [The Offertory Collection]. Now we all hold our common meeting on the Day of the Sun, because it is the first day on which God, having changed the darkness and matter, created the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For on the day before Saturn’s they crucified Him *; and on the day after Saturn’s; which is the Day of the Sun, having appeared to his Apostles and disciples, He taught them these things which we have offered you for consideration…

…But after we have thus washed him who is persuaded and has assented [here discussing a newly baptized person], we bring him to those who are called the brethren, to where they are gathered together, making earnest prayer in common for ourselves and for him who is enlightened, and for all others everywhere, that we may be accounted worthy, after we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found right livers and keepers of the commandments, that we may be saved with the eternal salvation. [The General Intercessions / Prayers of the Faithful] We salute each other with a kiss when we conclude our prayers [The “kiss” is the Sign of Peace]. Thereupon to the priest of the brethren bread and a cup of water and wine are brought, and he takes it and offers up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and gives thanks at length that we have been accounted worthy of these things from Him; and when he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving the whole people present assent, saying “Amen.” [The Eucharistic Prayers / The Consecration] Now the word Amen in the Hebrew language signifies, So be it. Then after the priest has given thanks and all the people have assented, those who are called by us deacons give to each one of those present to partake of the bread and of the wine and water for which thanks have been given, and for those not present they take away a portion. [Communion]

And this food is called by us Eucharist, and it is not lawful for any man to partake of it but him who believes the things taught by us to be true [Communion is open only to Catholics and considered a sacrament of initiation], and has been washed with the washing which is for the remission of sins and unto a new birth, and is so living as Christ commanded [Communion may not be partaken in by the unbaptized]. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but just as Jesus Christ our Savior, being made flesh through the word of God, had for our salvation both flesh and blood, so, also, we are taught that the food for which thanks are given by the word of prayer which is from Him, and from which by conversion our flesh and blood are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh [the Real Presence]. For the Apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus delivered what was commanded them: that Jesus took bread and gave thanks and said, This do in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that He likewise took the cup, and when He had given thanks, said, This is My blood Mt 26:17-19; Mk 14:12-16; Lk 22:7-13], and gave only to them…*