P
patrick457
Guest
This idea (which I believe is espoused by Tertullian BTW) is based on the Jewish conceit that prophets must have died on the very same day that they were conceived.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
Which shows that the celebration of Christ’s birth has replaced and overshadowed those events.
C
Christine85
Guest
Woohoo!!
po18guy
Well-known member
I think I knew where he was going with that response. Just as our Lord’s death converted the pagan Roman symbol of a criminal’s shameful death into the universal sign of hope; just as the pagan celebration tree has been converted into a sign of the advent of new birth for all creation; just as the pagan altar to the unknown god in Athens has been revealed to be the One, Eternal God of Israel in three persons, so also has December 25th been revealed as the celebration of the birthday of all birthdays - then, now and forever. Amen.
T
TimothyH
Guest
The major Christian holidays have a basis in the Jewish cycle of festivals.
Christmas is celebrated near the Jewish Festival of Lights - Hanukkah. The Festival of Lights celebrated the rebuilding and rededication of the temple after it was destroyed by the Babylonians prior to the exile of the Israelites. We celebrate the Christian continuation of the Festival of Lights when we celebrate the creation of the true temple not made with hands - Jesus Christ.
Hanukkah therefor, finds it’s fulfillment in the celebration of the Nativity of Jesus Christ.
Onother reason why we celebrate the Incarnation on the 25th of December is because it is near the winter solstice. The days get longer after the celebration of the Nativity of the Lord near the winter solstice while the the celebration of the Nativity of John the Baptist is near the summer solsice and the days grow shorter after that date.
He must increase; I must decrease. (John 3:30)
The increasing and decreasing length of the days, use of the calendar and natural cycle of seasons was a teaching tool for peasant farmers and pagans.
-Tim-
Christmas is celebrated near the Jewish Festival of Lights - Hanukkah. The Festival of Lights celebrated the rebuilding and rededication of the temple after it was destroyed by the Babylonians prior to the exile of the Israelites. We celebrate the Christian continuation of the Festival of Lights when we celebrate the creation of the true temple not made with hands - Jesus Christ.
Hanukkah therefor, finds it’s fulfillment in the celebration of the Nativity of Jesus Christ.
Onother reason why we celebrate the Incarnation on the 25th of December is because it is near the winter solstice. The days get longer after the celebration of the Nativity of the Lord near the winter solstice while the the celebration of the Nativity of John the Baptist is near the summer solsice and the days grow shorter after that date.
He must increase; I must decrease. (John 3:30)
The increasing and decreasing length of the days, use of the calendar and natural cycle of seasons was a teaching tool for peasant farmers and pagans.
-Tim-
N
Nita
Guest
Certainly no need to apologize to anyone ---- the Catholic Encyclopedia found it pertinent enough to have a fairly long entry giving the history of Christmas, including a section titled “Origin of Date”… I think you may find it informative and interesting.
newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm
P
PoorKnight
Guest
Per Fr. Richard Simons of “Go ask your Father” on Relevant Radio, and has the website “Rev. Know-it-All”, the pagen link to Christmas may very well be bunk.
The Saturnalia feast started on Dec 17th ended Dec 23rd at the latest. Dec 25th has nothing to do with it. Do I now have be concerned for our feasts because they are NEAR another religion’s holiday? (OH NO I can’t celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception because it’ within two weeks of Thanksgiving!)
What the date Christmas may have to do with was an ancient Jewish custom that a prophet was conceived on the same date they died on.
Historical records do say that March 25th is a very plausible date for Christ’s death. Therefore, 9 months after that is… Dec 25th.
Also, I recently heard, either on Relevant Radio or from Jimmy Akin, that new archeological evidence is suggesting that celebrating the Nativity was established BEFORE the pagen winter celebrations and the pagan feast of Sol whatever was placed on Dec 25th to try to take over Christmas!
Just passing on some more info to think about. The date is less important than WHAT we are celebrating IMHO.
God Bless
:knight2:
The Saturnalia feast started on Dec 17th ended Dec 23rd at the latest. Dec 25th has nothing to do with it. Do I now have be concerned for our feasts because they are NEAR another religion’s holiday? (OH NO I can’t celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception because it’ within two weeks of Thanksgiving!)
What the date Christmas may have to do with was an ancient Jewish custom that a prophet was conceived on the same date they died on.
Historical records do say that March 25th is a very plausible date for Christ’s death. Therefore, 9 months after that is… Dec 25th.
Also, I recently heard, either on Relevant Radio or from Jimmy Akin, that new archeological evidence is suggesting that celebrating the Nativity was established BEFORE the pagen winter celebrations and the pagan feast of Sol whatever was placed on Dec 25th to try to take over Christmas!
Just passing on some more info to think about. The date is less important than WHAT we are celebrating IMHO.
God Bless
:knight2:
1
1_with_God
Guest
The best explanation presented. Thank you.
J
Jamie_Burns
Guest
Any written references to the Saturnalia Feast in Rome are from the A.D., later than the earliest references of “us” celebrating Epiphany (birth, magi, baptism, Cana). It could be just as easy to say that Saturnalia was a response to Christian celebration.
What do scholars give as the reason for disagreeing with late December? The only one I ever hear is that it had to be lambing time for the shepherds to be out in the fields, and that is absurd. those scholars don’t know the sheep business, if the sheep are free range they would be watched spring or winter (predators, rustlers, risk of “piling” in cold weather)
What do scholars give as the reason for disagreeing with late December? The only one I ever hear is that it had to be lambing time for the shepherds to be out in the fields, and that is absurd. those scholars don’t know the sheep business, if the sheep are free range they would be watched spring or winter (predators, rustlers, risk of “piling” in cold weather)
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
It’s a tradition of the Church to celebrate his birth on Dec. 25, and Nicaea II mentioned something about not disregarding traditions. But I think that based on Zechariah’s service in the Temple, if Christ was born in 4 BC (which many believe he was), his birth would be around December 25. Not to mention the tradition going back to ca 200 AD that Christ’s Incarnation was around March 25.
R
roger_pearse
Guest
No ancient text records any “birth date” for these people. I think a late Alexandrian text might say something which suggests it for Harpocrates, but the source I have seen on this is very unreliable.
R
roger_pearse
Guest
There’s more to this one. The Chronography does indeed say “N. INVICTI” against that date, which is most likely Natalis of Sol Invictus. But Natalis may not mean birthday. It may mean “anniversary of the consecration of the temple of…”.
The 25th was considered as equivalent to the winter equinox, the birth of the new sun. Some ancient authors display knowledge that it is not actually the equinox, but they go along with the popular understanding.
No ancient source identifies Sol Invictus, the late Roman state sun god with the mystery cult of Mithras. The Latin phrase “sol invictus” is used as a title for various gods, meaning “unconquered sun”, from early Roman times. But the state cult – and the calendar records state festivals – only came into existence in 274 AD. The two have no overlap, although of course paganism was syncretistic and some very late Roman senators are both pontifexes in the state cult and a “pater” of Mithras, and indeed hold other priesthoods as well.
R
roger_pearse
Guest
I think that this is probably a confusion with the evidence of the Chronography of 354 AD (which is online, btw). This book was certainly written in 354 AD, as it is dedicated to “our emperors” Constantius and Gallus. But some parts of the book are older. There is a section on church feasts, which must be from the 330’s, and this mentions Christmas. So it is possible to argue that the mention of the Natalis of Sol Invictus in part 6 (the calendar) is later.
I don’t believe it myself. Constantine was already emperor by 330, and I don’t believe either he or Constantius would establish a new state pagan festival. It must date from the time of Aurelian (274) or later, in my opinion. If the word “natalis” in this text does indeed mean “anniversary of the consecration of the temple”, then this must have taken place in 274, and means that Aurelian consecrated the new temple of Sol Invictus on 25th December 274, and (presumably) created the holiday at the same time. But of course it may not have that meaning; it may simply refer to the birth of the sun, the equinox. The festival is not an ancient one, tho: the number of chariot races given is irregular. The early festivals all have set numbers. Those from the late empire have numbers like 24.
I don’t really believe in the idea of Christmas being moved to 25 Dec. to compete, either. The big Roman festival was Saturnalia, on 17-23rd Dec.; and Christians needed to get much more momentum before they could count on competition going their way.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
All the best,
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
This gets discussed each year this time.
To summarize:
No serious modern classical scholar still holds the theory that Christmas was created to replace or ride on the back of an existing pagan celebration. There were no other Pagan religious celebrations on December 25, with the possible exception of a Sol Invictus celebration that was a minor one, and which appeared long after the rise of Christianity. The foremost expert on the Sol Invictus cult in the world discounts the idea that Christmas was created to ride on Sol Invictus’ coattails.
No other messiah or god figure was said to be born on December 25 in classical times. I can tell you the source of your information, daddygirl, and it’s been thoroughly debunked. It was from a book written by a Spiritualist who cited no sources for any of his claims. No classical scholar takes that idea seriously, but you can still find the book on atheist and anti-Catholic websites.
The whole “no sheep in winter” idea came from a Scottish anti-Catholic (Hislop). Sheep may not be outside in the Scottish winter, but they sure are in Bethlehem. Also in Navajo country, where I live and where the sheep are out all year around. We are on the same latitude line and elevation as Bethlehem.
The Solstice as an astronomical event (known and used as a marker in all agricultural cultures) as opposed to a religious one seems to be the best explanation for the choice to commemorate the Feast of the Nativity, as Augustine said (and oddly, the cults of Apollo and Sol Invictus did not use any solar events such as solstice or equinox dates as religious holidays).
The early Christians believed that the mixture or dilution of Christian worship with pagan worship was so sinful that they went to their deaths rather than accept it, so it is hardly plausible that they would combine their faith with a pagan one; after all, the early Christians (and the Jews) believed that the pagan “gods” were false gods not because they didn’t exist, but that they did exist and were demons and unclean spirits.
The specific choice of 12/25 could also be based on a calculation based on the conception dates of Elizabeth, the presumed conception date of Mary (if we assume that she conceived shortly after the Annunciation), and the dates when Zecheriah’s priestly line offered sacrifices in the Temple. Plug all that in, and you have a date for birth in late December. I would think that people in the early Church know what the human gestation period is and can do simple math, so that may have led them to the 12/25 date.
To summarize:
No serious modern classical scholar still holds the theory that Christmas was created to replace or ride on the back of an existing pagan celebration. There were no other Pagan religious celebrations on December 25, with the possible exception of a Sol Invictus celebration that was a minor one, and which appeared long after the rise of Christianity. The foremost expert on the Sol Invictus cult in the world discounts the idea that Christmas was created to ride on Sol Invictus’ coattails.
No other messiah or god figure was said to be born on December 25 in classical times. I can tell you the source of your information, daddygirl, and it’s been thoroughly debunked. It was from a book written by a Spiritualist who cited no sources for any of his claims. No classical scholar takes that idea seriously, but you can still find the book on atheist and anti-Catholic websites.
The whole “no sheep in winter” idea came from a Scottish anti-Catholic (Hislop). Sheep may not be outside in the Scottish winter, but they sure are in Bethlehem. Also in Navajo country, where I live and where the sheep are out all year around. We are on the same latitude line and elevation as Bethlehem.
The Solstice as an astronomical event (known and used as a marker in all agricultural cultures) as opposed to a religious one seems to be the best explanation for the choice to commemorate the Feast of the Nativity, as Augustine said (and oddly, the cults of Apollo and Sol Invictus did not use any solar events such as solstice or equinox dates as religious holidays).
The early Christians believed that the mixture or dilution of Christian worship with pagan worship was so sinful that they went to their deaths rather than accept it, so it is hardly plausible that they would combine their faith with a pagan one; after all, the early Christians (and the Jews) believed that the pagan “gods” were false gods not because they didn’t exist, but that they did exist and were demons and unclean spirits.
The specific choice of 12/25 could also be based on a calculation based on the conception dates of Elizabeth, the presumed conception date of Mary (if we assume that she conceived shortly after the Annunciation), and the dates when Zecheriah’s priestly line offered sacrifices in the Temple. Plug all that in, and you have a date for birth in late December. I would think that people in the early Church know what the human gestation period is and can do simple math, so that may have led them to the 12/25 date.
D
DavidWJackson
Guest
NO.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Incorrect, there is no historical evidence a birthdate for any of them. You should ask whoever tries to feed you that falsehood to produce primary evidence for their false contentions.
D
dallas123
Guest
Joseph Smith, a prophet of God who was used by God to establish the LDS (Mormon) church received a revelation from God telling him that he was born on April 6th.
Dallas Murdoch
Dallas Murdoch
O
october_baby
Guest
Very informative thank you!! 
M
muzikman
Guest
Actually, the author of the linked article tracked down the birth of Jesus by figuring out when John the Baptist was born (based on his father’s service in the temple) and then adding 6 months (from Luke 1:36).
There is just enough info that the real birth of Jesus can be calculated… Hallelujah!
There is just enough info that the real birth of Jesus can be calculated… Hallelujah!
G
geekborj
Guest
So informative. The conception date of March 25 seems to coincide with the fact that God was incarnated in March!
Amazing!- Status