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.
For that matter, the 'conception' was predestined long before any act of creation was uttered; so the point is meaningless as an argument for ignoring the Jewish feasts in favor of interpretations of 'nature'.
"No I do not worship the 'sun', but view it symbolically as what was given to flesh beings to live, because without it life would not live in flesh."
Of course nature conforms to the image of Christ when viewed properly. However, it is better to view the Jewish feasts symbolically because they all point to Christ, were fulfilled by him in some way and provide a deeper understanding of His nature and work than using 'nature' as your source. This is why I said, "The Church has lost it's way by ignoring the Jewish feast days and their prophetic witness to the person of Jesus Christ."
Never said the feasts were established by a people.
"And where exactly did God establish the feast of Hanukkah?"
Where? In Jerusalem at the temple in the 2nd century BC at the time of the Maccabean Revolt. When 1 days worth of oil burned for 8 days for the re-dedication of the temple after it had been defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. This represents the 're-dedication' of the human body as the temple of the Holy Spirit in Christ as his conception occurred at this time. Hanukkah is known as the Festival of Lights and Jesus said that He was the Light of the World.
In the NT, this is referred to in John 10, when Christ went up to the temple at the time of the 'winter feast of dedication'. It was when the Jews demanded that Christ 'tell them plainly' whether He was the Messiah. After which, they took up stones to stone him for blasphemy.
"Kinda like Christians celebrating Ishtar instead of ‘Passover’!"
Nope. Hanukkah was thoroughly YHWH-centered, unlike Ishtar which is pagan throughout. The mistake the church has made throughout history is to try to incorporate pagan (meaning nature-worship) 'holidays' to make it easier for pagans to accept Christ. It would be much better to teach the Jewish feasts and how they prophetically point to Christ rather than to continue making the same pagan error.
"Mark your door posts so the ‘death’ angel would ‘pass over’."
Yes, the 'blood of the Lamb' saves from spiritual death. That was the central prophetic message of the Passover.
> “It would be much better to teach the Jewish feasts (actually the Lord’s feasts) and how they prophetically point to Christ rather than to continue making the same pagan error.”
.
Amen!
Let’s stop insulting the Lord in the guise of honoring him.
.
Some people are prone to worship buildings. John 2:19; Matthew 26:61—; Mark 14:58-— Christ went up to the temple when the religious authorities appointed out of Rome were celebrating their festival... You really think Christ went to celebrate their festival??? I do not see how you get this notion given Christ told these religious authorities He was the Temple... Remember Christ knew what they thought before they uttered a word.
> “the first day of the week,” as in the Gospels.
.
Really the “first day of the weeks,” as in the seven weeks of Pentecost, in the Gospels.
There was no “Sunday” worship in the first two centuries.
.
The Maccabean Revolt which resulted in the festival of Hanukkah was against the Selucid Empire. It had nothing to do with Rome. It was a festival celebrating the re-dedication and cleansing of the temple. It was in no way a Roman festival.
"You really think Christ went to celebrate their festival???"
It wasn't a Roman festival. It was and remains a thoroughly Jewish festival.
"I do not see how you get this notion given Christ told these religious authorities He was the Temple..."
Again, it wasn't a Roman festival that Christ went up to celebrate. It was a thoroughly Jewish festival that prophetically pointed to the re-dedication of the human body through the conception of Christ as a temple of the Holy Spirit totally dedicated to God the Father.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There’s actually evidence from Jewish sources to show the time of Jesus’ birth was late December too...
(hint:Luke 1:5 indicates John the Baptist—6 months older than Jesus—was conceived right after his father’s priestly division, Abijah, was in service. Reasoned calculations put John’s birth at 2 possible times (each division served twice during the year)—making Jesus birth, 6 months later, either in Spring...or, late December.
Scholarly theories of a pagan origin of Christmas point to the “Birth of the Unconquered Sun” on Dec. 25th, NOT Saturnalia (which was a made-up feast anyway...not an ancient religious rite) on Dec. 17th, as the supposed origin.
This article just points out that there are clues that Christians celebrated Jesus birth on Dec. 25 (never earlier in Dec...) well BEFORE the Roman Emperor made the date into another Roman holidy.
The Gospel of Luke though gives us a clue...in Ch. 1 vs. 5, that Zachariah, John the Baptist’s father, conceived John right after his priestly duty as part of the “division of Abijah.” The reason this hasn’t been definitive...is the exact documented timing of when each division served is lost to us today... However, it would NOT of been lost to those Christians in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries when the date of Jesus birth became established.
According to Messianic Jewish sources today—using their best educated guess-—the timing of the service of the “division of Abijah” puts Jesus birth (6 months after John’s) as either in the Spring, or, late December.
The Church overwhelmingly...from early on...as put Jesus birth in late Dec. (or early January—differences in Calendars East and West), therefore there is no reason to really not to accept that date.
Yeshua himself denies this - he offers the sign of Jonah: 3 days and 3 nights.
Exactly right! See De temporum ratione ("On the Reckoning of Time") by the Venerable Bede.
March 25th was believed to be the day of Adam's creation, also. Ergo, it would be the date of the conception of the Second Adam.
“It would be much better to teach the Jewish feasts and how they prophetically point to Christ rather than to continue making the same pagan error.”
We had a Messianic Jew come in and do a mini “seder” dinner with us at our protestant church. It was very interesting with all of the symbolism, etc.
I’ve read elsewhere, and find interesting how all of the feasts have a major Jesus event associated with it. Except for the Festival of Trumpets (IIRC). And of course, we have one more Jesus event to look forward to - the Second Coming.
The Seder is the one feast that we try to keep as a family.
We have our own complete service that we go through.
I recommend it.
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.
