Which Feast is Christmas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CutlerB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CutlerB

Guest
Hello everybody,

for some reason a thought jumped into my head today, most probably because I was thinking about how to answer the Jehovah’s Witness claim that Christmas was pagan and Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December. My thought was, if Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation, then 25 December fits perfectly with an alleged birth of Our Lord around September/October. If it is really the celebration of only the Birth of Christ, then that point doesn’t work.

Now it might really sound stupid, but what would be the more fitting term for Christmas, the Feast of the Birth of Christ or His Incarnation? Thanks. 🙂
 
Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord is the proper name. Birth.

I’ve read that it actually should be sometime in March or April because that’s when the census was taken, which is why Joseph and Mary were heading to Joseph’s hometown.

In any event, it’s no different than the Anglicans - of which you claim to be - celebrating the Queen’s Birthday on a different day.

The celebration is the important thing, not the actual date.
 
Solemnity of the Nativity of the Lord is the proper name. Birth.

I’ve read that it actually should be sometime in March or April because that’s when the census was taken, which is why Joseph and Mary were heading to Joseph’s hometown.

In any event, it’s no different than the Anglicans - of which you claim to be - celebrating the Queen’s Birthday on a different day.

The celebration is the important thing, not the actual date.
I know, I agree hat Christmas is not in any way pagan. I’ve just got a JW friend who constantly keeps bashing the Church and Christians for celebrating Christmas. It is in fact so annoying that I really need to keep myself from being loud and very direct in saying certain things. I cannot bear such sheer ignorant arrogance. He won’t even take seriously what I say in defence. He’s right, I’m wrong.
 
The incarnation is celebrated at the Annunciation: March 25th. Nine months prior to Christmas: the Nativity of the Lord.
 
The incarnation is celebrated at the Annunciation: March 25th. Nine months prior to Christmas: the Nativity of the Lord.
Which leads me to a follow-up question: Can we say when Jesus became incarnate? Was it right then when Mary received the news or when did it happen?
 
Which leads me to a follow-up question: Can we say when Jesus became incarnate? Was it right then when Mary received the news or when did it happen?
Well, it took her maybe 3 days to get to Elizabeth. She responded to the presence of Mary with the question “But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

Now to be mother, there must be a child. So she must have been with child on that day. So if it was not immediately, it was within a few hours.
 
The hangup of those who deny Christmas is the date. Their biggest contention is that Chirst wasn’t born on that day, or at least we do not have any proof. But that is besides the point. We are celebrating a Feast which celebrates the Birth of Christ. We are not celebrating the day, we are celebrating the event, the fact that it happened. Whether it was December or April or August or whenever is besides the point. The date is unimportant to us. What is important to us as Christians is that Christ in fact was born into this world.
 
I know, I agree hat Christmas is not in any way pagan. I’ve just got a JW friend who constantly keeps bashing the Church and Christians for celebrating Christmas. It is in fact so annoying that I really need to keep myself from being loud and very direct in saying certain things. I cannot bear such sheer ignorant arrogance. He won’t even take seriously what I say in defence. He’s right, I’m wrong.
There is in fact, a historical basis for putting it in December…not just the actual date.

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/31JdXn/Christnty/SpLf/ChYr/ChristmDat.htm

Many Christians think that Christians celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25th
because the church fathers appropriated the date of a pagan festival. .

Rather, the pagan festival of the “Birth of the Unconquered Son” instituted by the Roman Emperor Aurelian on 25 December 274, was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians. Thus the “pagan origins of Christmas” is a myth without historical substance.

By the way…show you friend this…The Calculating Christmas article was very enjoyable reading. However, you can also calculate a Dec 25 date from Scripture.

Reading the first few chapters of Luke, we see that everything is timed from when Zacharias was in the temple, let’s assume for the sake of argument that this was in early October. That would place the likely time of John the Baptist’s conception toward the end of October or early November. This is based on his week of service, his ritual cleansing time, and assuming he got right down to business with Elisabeth (if an angel told me I was going to have a kid, I’d expect things to move right along).

So, Elisabeth then hid herself for five months. In the beginning of April, the angel appeared to Mary. Let’s call the date April 1. A normal gestation period of 270 days puts the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25.

Obvious question: Was Zacharias serving in October?

The Mishnah indicates that each course served a week during the first half of the year, the three festival weeks, and a week during the last half of the year, for a total of five weeks during a normal year.

We start counting weeks on the first Sabbath of Nisan (approx. March), here’s when Zacharias would have served:

Week 3 Feast of the Unleavened;
Week 9 Pentecost (65 days after Nisan 14);
Week 10 (2 festivals + 8 courses);
Week 29 Tishri festival of booths;
Week 35 (24 courses + 3 feasts + 8 courses)

Week 35 is going to be sometime in October or November. However, there are various problems with the calendar translation with extra months getting thrown in, arguments about when exactly new moons happen, etc etc. Fortunately, it seems that Zacharias was serving during the Day of Atonement, which is easier to peg to a date. The Day of Atonement is the nineteenth day of Tischri, which falls in September/October. After the dust settles, you get the first week in October as the most likely date that Zacharias had his visit.

Early church lore (John Chrysostom) has Zechariah’s visit from the angel happening on the Day of Atonement. Looking at Scripture (Sola Scriptura!) seems to indicate that Zechariah was in the Holy of Holies as he was apparently alone. Thumbing through relevant Scripture does seem to strongly indicate that Zechariah had his visit during the Day of Atonement. It seems that the only time someone was in his particular situation, as described in Luke, was
during the Day of Atonement.

Luke 1:9 “he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.”

Luke 1:21 “Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple.”

Looking at what happens during the Day of Atonement:

Leviticus 16:12-13 “He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that he will not die.”

From Hebrews, it seems very likely that Zechariah was performing the ceremony of the Day of Atonement, that’s the only explanation I’ve found for why he was in the temple alone. Also, notice the symbolism pointed out in Hebrews (not that I place much weight on typological arguments, it’s just interesting).

Hebrews 9:1-7: “Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the
consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.”

So, this, taken with early Church’s belief that Christ was born on December 25th (although the Eastern Church uses either Jan 1st or Jan 6th) seems to indicate that December 25th is the date.
 
Hello everybody,

for some reason a thought jumped into my head today, most probably because I was thinking about how to answer the Jehovah’s Witness claim that Christmas was pagan and Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December. My thought was, if Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation, then 25 December fits perfectly with an alleged birth of Our Lord around September/October. If it is really the celebration of only the Birth of Christ, then that point doesn’t work.

Now it might really sound stupid, but what would be the more fitting term for Christmas, the Feast of the Birth of Christ or His Incarnation? Thanks. 🙂
At Christmas, we celebrate the fact that God was born in the mystery of the Incarnation in the same manner as us. Whether the date is the actual anniversary date of that birth is irrelevant.
 
I know, I agree hat Christmas is not in any way pagan. I’ve just got a JW friend who constantly keeps bashing the Church and Christians for celebrating Christmas. It is in fact so annoying that I really need to keep myself from being loud and very direct in saying certain things. I cannot bear such sheer ignorant arrogance. He won’t even take seriously what I say in defense. He’s right, I’m wrong.
If this is his attitude then it is not worth trying to talk to him about it.

Furthermore…I would say that a person with that attitude is no friend…Not in the Christian sense of the word anyway because he is not treating you in the way he would wish to be treated.
I would suggest that it might be more useful to address this fact with him rather than wasting breath on something as trivial as the date chosen for the feast of the nativity etc…

Peace
James
 
Christmas is the Christianization of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah or “The Festival of Lights”

The Festival of Lights was a celebration of the re-decication of the Temple after it had been destroyed and subsequently rebuilt by Judah Maccabees in about 165 BC.

***Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-eighth year, they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt offering which they had built. At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals. All the people fell on their faces and worshiped and blessed Heaven, who had prospered them. So they celebrated the dedication of the altar *for eight days, and offered burnt offerings with gladness; they offered a sacrifice of deliverance and praise. (1 Maccabees 4:52-56)

Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with gladness and joy for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Chislev. (1 Maccabees 4:59)


The month of Chislev is November/December and the Festival of Lights was celebrated on the 25th day.

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21)

Christ is the new temple. God used to dwell in the temple but when Christ came, God himself became the temple and dwelled with man. We celebrate the dedication of the new temple, Christ’s body, at Christmas.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible “New World Translation” does not contain 1 Maccabees so they wouldn’t know this. I suspect that they wouldn’t realize it even if they did have 1 Maccabees in their Bible.

-Tim-
 
If this is his attitude then it is not worth trying to talk to him about it.

Furthermore…I would say that a person with that attitude is no friend…Not in the Christian sense of the word anyway because he is not treating you in the way he would wish to be treated.
I would suggest that it might be more useful to address this fact with him rather than wasting breath on something as trivial as the date chosen for the feast of the nativity etc…

Peace
James
Let me get this straight: It’s not that he will not take anything seriously. We are good friends. I’ll tell the story of what happened.

We were in Rome this June with some friends and were just walking back from the Vatican (which we spent multiple days at and I could go back immediately!) and the tour of the Necropolis. We had also seen the tomb of Saint Peter and prayed there. He wasn’t delighted at all about this at was mad about the wonderful woman guiding us there, through me not directly to her. He was not happy at all about her offer (yes, she offered and did not force anyone, but he stayed) to pray their and receive the priestly blessing of the priest accompanying us.

For those who haven’t been, in one of the mausoleums there is a beautiful mosaic resembling the sun god Helios with beams of light around him. The lady said that this was actually a Christian grave, and this had been discovered by two particular beams of light that formed a cross behind the person who was actually Christ. (Here’s the image)

On the way back, he told me that he did not all think this was courageous of the early Christians to do, but rather it was horrible and evil. “They are violating God’s command to keep away from pagan symbols!” I said: “Well, aside from the fact that Christ died on a cross and they just had to use it, things can be christianised, you know.” And that’s how he got into the Christmas thing. I then asked him why JWs use wedding rings, because they are pagan too. He said: “No they aren’t. I will research that.” Of course, he didn’t. At least he didn’t tell me.

Now about the “He’s right, I’m wrong.” that was the situation then, and it is not a general attitude. Both of us were fairly agitated. We have good exchanges and discussions otherwise and I am currently in one with him on the Trinity in the Church Fathers.
 
Christmas is the Christianization of the Jewish feast of Hanukkah or “The Festival of Lights”

The Festival of Lights was a celebration of the re-decication of the Temple after it had been destroyed and subsequently rebuilt by Judah Maccabees in about 165 BC.

***Early in the morning on the twenty-fifth day of the ninth month, which is the month of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-eighth year, they rose and offered sacrifice, as the law directs, on the new altar of burnt offering which they had built. At the very season and on the very day that the Gentiles had profaned it, it was dedicated with songs and harps and lutes and cymbals. All the people fell on their faces and worshiped and blessed Heaven, who had prospered them. So they celebrated the dedication of the altar ***for eight days, and offered burnt offerings with gladness; they offered a sacrifice of deliverance and praise. (1 Maccabees 4:52-56)

Then Judas and his brothers and all the assembly of Israel determined that every year at that season the days of dedication of the altar should be observed with gladness and joy for eight days, beginning with the twenty-fifth day of the month of Chislev. (1 Maccabees 4:59)

The month of Chislev is November/December and the Festival of Lights was celebrated on the 25th day.

Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21)

Christ is the new temple. God used to dwell in the temple but when Christ came, God himself became the temple and dwelled with man. We celebrate the dedication of the new temple, Christ’s body, at Christmas.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible “New World Translation” does not contain 1 Maccabees so they wouldn’t know this. I suspect that they wouldn’t realize it even if they did have 1 Maccabees in their Bible.

-Tim-
Good point, I haven’t heard of that before!
 
Let me get this straight: It’s not that he will not take anything seriously. We are good friends. I’ll tell the story of what happened.

We were in Rome this June with some friends and were just walking back from the Vatican (which we spent multiple days at and I could go back immediately!) and the tour of the Necropolis. We had also seen the tomb of Saint Peter and prayed there. He wasn’t delighted at all about this at was mad about the wonderful woman guiding us there, through me not directly to her. He was not happy at all about her offer (yes, she offered and did not force anyone, but he stayed) to pray their and receive the priestly blessing of the priest accompanying us.

For those who haven’t been, in one of the mausoleums there is a beautiful mosaic resembling the sun god Helios with beams of light around him. The lady said that this was actually a Christian grave, and this had been discovered by two particular beams of light that formed a cross behind the person who was actually Christ. (Here’s the image)

On the way back, he told me that he did not all think this was courageous of the early Christians to do, but rather it was horrible and evil. “They are violating God’s command to keep away from pagan symbols!” I said: “Well, aside from the fact that Christ died on a cross and they just had to use it, things can be christianised, you know.” And that’s how he got into the Christmas thing. I then asked him why JWs use wedding rings, because they are pagan too. He said: “No they aren’t. I will research that.” Of course, he didn’t. At least he didn’t tell me.

Now about the “He’s right, I’m wrong.” that was the situation then, and it is not a general attitude. Both of us were fairly agitated. We have good exchanges and discussions otherwise and I am currently in one with him on the Trinity in the Church Fathers.
Wow - Thanks for the clarification…This sounds quite a bit different than the post that I responded to wher you said…(Emphasis added)…
I know, I agree hat Christmas is not in any way pagan. I’ve just got a JW friend who constantly keeps bashing the Church and Christians for celebrating Christmas. It is in fact so annoying that I really need to keep myself from being loud and very direct in saying certain things. I cannot bear such sheer ignorant arrogance. He won’t even take seriously what I say in defense. He’s right, I’m wrong.
Can you see why I got the wrong impression? 😉

Anyway - I’m glad you are able to have some good discussions with him on these matters…And the next time he DOES get to church bashing and not listening…Just keep the old “golden rule” handy. Hopefully it will settle him down.

Peace
James
 
Wow - Thanks for the clarification…This sounds quite a bit different than the post that I responded to wher you said…(Emphasis added)…

Can you see why I got the wrong impression? 😉

Anyway - I’m glad you are able to have some good discussions with him on these matters…And the next time he DOES get to church bashing and not listening…Just keep the old “golden rule” handy. Hopefully it will settle him down.

Peace
James
I can see why you got the impression 😉 What I meant was: He will bash the Church whenever he can, but if I get up to defend her he actually does listen. It just wasn’t in that particular case.

I can think I multiple golden rules, high one do you mean? 😃
 
I can see why you got the impression 😉 What I meant was: He will bash the Church whenever he can, but if I get up to defend her he actually does listen. It just wasn’t in that particular case.

I can think I multiple golden rules, high one do you mean? 😃
The “Golden Rule” I refer to is this.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mt 7:12)

When he gets on his “high horse”, change the subject to this command of our Lord. That we treat others in the way that we wish to be treated. If he wishes to be listened to then he needs to be willing to listen. If he wishes his views and points to be taken seriously, then he should take yours seriously. If he wishes that others not “bash” his church, then he should not “bash” others.
And then make the point that this does not lessen ones ability to evangelize for the Lord but actually enhances it. The Lord gave a simple instruction to allow others to know if we are His disciples. Our Lord says:
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Then you can ask your friend if he feels that his actions are in keeping with these commands of our Lord.

Might make an interesting conversation…but beware…he may point our some flaws in your approach as well…Then we are getting into yet another instruction from our Lord concerning flaws and things in our eyes. (Mt7:3-5)

But even should he point out flaws in you, it can be healthy. In this way you both learn valuable lessons and may grow closer in Christian love and friendship.

I see I’ve started rambling…Sorry…:imsorry::blushing:

Anyway, I hope you and your friend have many long and fruitful discussions.

peace
James
 
The “Golden Rule” I refer to is this.
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Mt 7:12)

When he gets on his “high horse”, change the subject to this command of our Lord. That we treat others in the way that we wish to be treated. If he wishes to be listened to then he needs to be willing to listen. If he wishes his views and points to be taken seriously, then he should take yours seriously. If he wishes that others not “bash” his church, then he should not “bash” others.
And then make the point that this does not lessen ones ability to evangelize for the Lord but actually enhances it. The Lord gave a simple instruction to allow others to know if we are His disciples. Our Lord says:
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35)
Then you can ask your friend if he feels that his actions are in keeping with these commands of our Lord.

Might make an interesting conversation…but beware…he may point our some flaws in your approach as well…Then we are getting into yet another instruction from our Lord concerning flaws and things in our eyes. (Mt7:3-5)

But even should he point out flaws in you, it can be healthy. In this way you both learn valuable lessons and may grow closer in Christian love and friendship.

I see I’ve started rambling…Sorry…:imsorry::blushing:

Anyway, I hope you and your friend have many long and fruitful discussions.

peace
James
Don’t worry about rambling 😉

Thank you though, and sorry about that spelling mistake of mine. Auto-correct sometimes does things I don’t want it to do… We do get on well most of the time, but I admit, both of us find themselves getting very emotionally charged.

I’m still awaiting a reply on the Divinity of Christ in the Church Fathers from him. I asked him about that as he had given me their “Should you believe in the Trinity” brochure, in which they claim the Church Fathers actually held the JW view. 🤷
 
Hello everybody,

for some reason a thought jumped into my head today, most probably because I was thinking about how to answer the Jehovah’s Witness claim that Christmas was pagan and Jesus wasn’t born on 25 December. My thought was, if Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation, then 25 December fits perfectly with an alleged birth of Our Lord around September/October. If it is really the celebration of only the Birth of Christ, then that point doesn’t work.

Now it might really sound stupid, but what would be the more fitting term for Christmas, the Feast of the Birth of Christ or His Incarnation? Thanks. 🙂
To summarize all the complicated history, December 25th is the date in which Jesus’ birth was commemorated in certain areas of the West, for example like Rome (as per the Chronography of 354). Many areas in the East, meanwhile, originally commemorated it on January 6th alongside certain other events of Jesus’ early life. (Egypt, specifically Alexandria, was a particularly complicated area in this regard.) Soon, the two feasts crossed their original boundaries: most of the East began adopting the December 25th commemoration (excluding the Armenians; they commemorate the Nativity on January 6th to the present day), while the West got a new feast, that of the Epiphany.
 
Early church lore (John Chrysostom) has Zechariah’s visit from the angel happening on the Day of Atonement. Looking at Scripture (Sola Scriptura!) seems to indicate that Zechariah was in the Holy of Holies as he was apparently alone. Thumbing through relevant Scripture does seem to strongly indicate that Zechariah had his visit during the Day of Atonement. It seems that the only time someone was in his particular situation, as described in Luke, was
during the Day of Atonement.

Luke 1:9 “he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.”

Luke 1:21 “Meanwhile, the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed so long in the temple.”

Looking at what happens during the Day of Atonement:

Leviticus 16:12-13 “He is to take a censer full of burning coals from the altar before the LORD and two handfuls of finely ground fragrant incense and take them behind the curtain. He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the Testimony, so that he will not die.”

From Hebrews, it seems very likely that Zechariah was performing the ceremony of the Day of Atonement, that’s the only explanation I’ve found for why he was in the temple alone. Also, notice the symbolism pointed out in Hebrews (not that I place much weight on typological arguments, it’s just interesting).

Hebrews 9:1-7: “Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the
consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance.”

So, this, taken with early Church’s belief that Christ was born on December 25th (although the Eastern Church uses either Jan 1st or Jan 6th) seems to indicate that December 25th is the date.
If Zechariah is in the Holy of Holies, then it follows that he must be the high priest (since only the high priest can enter in the sanctuary during the Day of Atonement). The problem with this is, we have no record from Josephus (our only source) of a high priest named ‘Zechariah’ during the reign of Herod the Great. For the latter part of Herod’s rule starting from 24 BC, Simon son of Boethus was the high priest.

[Herod] also fell in love again, and married another wife, not suffering his reason to hinder him from living as he pleased. The occasion of this his marriage was as follows: There was one Simon, a citizen of Jerusalem, the son of one Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria, and a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter, who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; and when the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected with what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty, yet did he entirely reject the thoughts of using his authority to abuse her, as believing, what was the truth, that by so doing he should be stigmatized for violence and tyranny; so he thought it best to take the damsel to wife. And while Simon was of a dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised, he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner, by augmenting the dignity of the family, and making them more honorable; so he immediately deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, and so joined in affinity with him [by marrying his daughter].

Herod eventually divorced Mariamne (in reality his third wife) around 5 BC because she was implicated in the plot of Antipater against her husband, taking the office away from Simon and disinheriting their son (Herod II) as well and giving it to Matthias son of Theophilus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top