Posted on 12/07/2005 2:36:38 PM PST by Charles Henrickson
According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.
William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article "Calculating Christmas," published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.
True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, "The Birth of the Unconquered Sun," on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun "was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians." Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.
The early church tried to ascertain the actual time of Christ's birth. It was all tied up with the second-century controversies over setting the date of Easter, the commemoration of Christ's death and resurrection. That date should have been an easy one. Though Easter is also charged with having its origins in pagan equinox festivals, we know from Scripture that Christ's death was at the time of the Jewish Passover. That time of year is known with precision.
But differences in the Jewish, Greek, and Latin calendars and the inconsistency between lunar and solar date-keeping caused intense debate over when to observe Easter. Another question was whether to fix one date for the Feast of the Resurrection no matter what day it fell on or to ensure that it always fell on Sunday, "the first day of the week," as in the Gospels.
This discussion also had a bearing on fixing the day of Christ's birth. Mr. Tighe, drawing on the in-depth research of Thomas J. Talley's The Origins of the Liturgical Year, cites the ancient Jewish belief (not supported in Scripture) that God appointed for the great prophets an "integral age," meaning that they died on the same day as either their birth or their conception.
Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.
Note the pro-life point: According to both the ancient Jews and the early Christians, life begins at conception. So if Christ was conceived on March 25, nine months later, he would have been born on Dec. 25.
This celebrates Christ's birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their "Yule" festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: "The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5).
Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.
Again, I will stipulate, there is no scripture that will show or allude to the fact that the early church specified Sunday worship.
How about the notion that they met daily?
ACTS 2:
42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
This is true. As a body of believers, baptized with the Holy Spirit, shortly after Pentecost they were always together. But they still remembered the Sabbath Day and kept it holy.
You mentioned John 20:19 previously and I gave a short response about them being together for fear of the Jews. If you notice the time it says in the original Greek, [It being therefore evening on that day] ...which day? [The first day of the week] ...this would be Saturday evening our time I'm sure you will agree. [And the doors having been shut where were the disciples assembled through fear of the Jews came Jesus and stood in the midst and says to them, "Peace unto you".]
Now it doesn't take too much thought to understand that they had been honoring the Sabbath that day and they were still behind closed doors for fear of the Jews after the Sabbath had passed. But anyway, the first four words of the verse identify the time as the evening right after the Sabbath.
"Sounds a little bit like Calypso Louie trying to explain something."
After the big buildup, I was waiting for the PROOF that Christ was born on December 25th, of the year "0" AD.
And waiting. Then the article came to an end.
I believe most historians agree we have the year wrong, so it shouldn't surprise we don't have the date down pat, either.
As my mother always taught: "..it is the meaning that counts."
I didn't realize I was. I'll try to be more careful.
Do you keep the whole law?
No.
What is so difficult about Colossians 2?
The Colossians were Greeks and had been practicing Paganism prior to their conversion. Now don't you think it odd that Paul would be even bringing up this question if, as Pagans, they would have had no prior knowledge? No....Paul is instructing these newly converted Christians in the observance of these things and is telling them to pay no attention to anyone who may be critical of them for doing so. Paul is explaining God's Festivals, dietary requirements and Sabbath observances.
"Paul is explaining God's Festivals, dietary requirements and Sabbath observances."
If you feel "obligated" to keep Saturday as a day of worship because it's a matter of law, don't let me get in your way.
This also obligates you to keep the whole law, and specifically everything that goes along with the Sabbath.
Do you walk or drive to far to church on Saturday?
Have you ever used your hands to do too much work on the Sabbath, like perhaps picking an apple?
Observing the Sabbath has to be done by the letter if it's done at all.
And it is a matter of law. Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment, and in doing so told us that if we keep the first two, we keep the entire law.
This means that He was stating it as a fact that the commandments are law.
My hope is that you have fun keeping all 613 of the commandments.
There is nothing wrong with choosing Saturday as the best day for your fellowship with other believers. Just don't tell me I'm wrong for not allowing myself to be under the same tradition.
Does the tin foil give you hat hair?
Ummmm, no. The belief among ancient Jews and early Christians was that life began at "quickening", or with the first movements of the fetus, a belief that persisted up until the 19th century - many such beliefs were based on or similar to Aristotle's concept of delayed ensoulment.
Never did. All I've said is there is no Biblical instruction to honor Sunday as your day of worship. There is no Biblical instruction to do away with the Sabbath as your day of worship.
The reasons for this have been outlined in previous posts but generally all fall under the attempt by the early Roman Church to be all inclusive (read politically correct) with regards to their populace. The existing Greek and Roman traditions were brought into the early church as scriptural....but as shown in earlier posts....they are not.
The major contention to my way of thinking is the Friday/Sunday resurrection tradition....didn't happen. If the word ever gets out on this and people start reading their Bibles using logic and common sense, the Church is in for a heap of trouble. This is a major cornerstone in Greek/Roman Theology and is the basis for their Sunday worship.
If you wish to worship and honor God in your own way I would not prevent you from doing so. Just don't try to tell me that "The Venerable Day Of The Sun" honors God.
And an awful lot of people are unwilling to accept that eternal truth...
I have to agree. The apostles were jews, and kept the feasts even long after the Lord's ascension too.
"How about the notion that they met daily?"
A well supported fact.
"Now there is no way you can guarantee that the day we call Saturday of today is in fact the 7th day of the time of Christ."
That is a common misconception. The moon has not changed it's orbit. The astronomical conditions remain the same. This is how the feasts are timed to this day. (Read Leviticus, the NT is of no help on this)
The Lord said "The sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath" The periods of rest must agree with the physics of the universe, which have not changed.
John the Baptist was born at the time of the passover. His feast appears to be at the time of his conception.
This is a hard pill for most of us who have been raised on the lie of sunday worship, but it is undeniable once you have opened your eyes.
So you are saying the conception of Jesus happened in December?
If so, maybe we are actually celebrating the conception of Jesus rather than His birth??? And does this mean that Jesus was a Person at conception?
As Artie Johnson used to say, "Veddy intedesting!"
Just differences of days with the old Julian (Roman) calender, that's all.
Trying to re-write history is always dangerous, and a is a favorite pass time of liberals. When conservatives do it they only harm themselves.
If you had read the original article from Touchstone, its not about what the date of Jesus birth actually was, but historically, WHY Christians calculated it to be Dec. 25.
Very convincing case, and not nonsense--and importantly NOT from an old pagan holiday. Doesn't contradict your the author of your link either--who attempts to calculate the date itself. Veith is just telling the history of the calculation, during Roman times.
"That is a common misconception. The moon has not changed it's orbit. The astronomical conditions remain the same. This is how the feasts are timed to this day. (Read Leviticus, the NT is of no help on this)
The Lord said "The sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath" The periods of rest must agree with the physics of the universe, which have not changed."
I mostly agree, but the moon was the lesser of the two lights created and the division of seasons result from solar rather than lunar. The moon was not the "light" use at night to lead the children out of Egypt. There are prophecies given in days (solar) and in months (lunar).
"Once again, the writer states a certain number of days before the transfiguration occurs. Both of these books make sure to count the days from the promise.
No offense, but your use of the verse is greatly out of place."
Not a bit.
Actually, you demonstrated the point that underlies what I have been saying.
So, which was it? 8 days or 6 days?
The Bible contradicts.
One (or both) of the two accounts is in error.
Does it matter?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.