Pagan Propaganda: The Other Attack on Christmas

American Thinker ^ | December 24, 2009 | Selwyn Duke

[neverdem]

Ah, Christmastime. Manger scenes and mistletoe, trees and tinsel, Santa and celebration, gift-giving and gratitude...and the ACLU roasting traditions on an open fire. Sadly, the last thing has become as much a seasonal expectation as the others, and the ACLU's  practice of suing our culture into oblivion has gotten a lot of ink. Yet there is another attack on Christmas -- actually, another attack on Christianity itself. This less well-known attack could ultimately prove more damaging than the usual atheistic assaults. And it's embraced by religionists themselves.

I'm sure you've heard the charges. Christmas is a "pagan holiday," they say. It originated with a celebration dedicated to Saturn (the Roman god of agriculture) which, upon coming to full flower, took place between December 17 and 23. Or perhaps it was inspired by the commemoration of a sun-god's birth. Here we have two candidates: the Indo-Iranian god Mithras and the Roman god Sol. And people often seem to confuse these two deities and their festivals, mixing and matching them in a game of musical myths. But it doesn't really matter because both Mithras' and Sol's mythical births, we're told, occurred on the same day: December 25^th.

"There you have it!" say the critics. "And the kicker is that Jesus wasn't even born on the 25^th! Besides, Christmas is unbiblical; there is no command in Scripture to celebrate the Lord's birth. Christmas is just an amalgamation of pagan feasts and the Nativity story in a nicely wrapped, brightly-colored, bow-adorned box."

This idea certainly has taken hold in some circles. Why, I know a man who claims to be Christian but is quite proud of the fact that he celebrates neither Christmas nor Easter (these creative historians apply the same reasoning to the latter). When I placed "Christmas is a" in Google, the first suggestion out of the ten I got was "Christmas is a pagan holiday." If only I could chalk it up to Google's usual "tweaking."

When I consider this particular heresy, I think of how a little knowledge is dangerous. And understand what is happening here. Some "Christians" are deciding to dispense with what have been Christianity's two highest holy days and part of the fabric of Western civilization for the better part of two thousand years, all in the name of something they heard on the Internet over the past several years. So let's examine the matter one charge at a time.

When addressing the notion that Christmas is a pagan event, we should first start with a very simple pronouncement.

It is not.

Christmas is the day on which we celebrate the birth of the founder of Christianity itself, the man on whom the faith that prevailed over paganism is based. That doesn't sound pagan to me.

But now we'll dig deeper and discuss the myth of Mithras and Sol. That is to say, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the December 25 Christmas celebration is based on either pagan deity. In fact, all the best evidence tells us something striking about the matter: neither Mithras's birth nor the celebration of Sol's even occurred on the 25^th. As to the former, writer and Mithras-cult-expert Roger Beck called the notion of the deity's December 25 birth "that hoariest of 'facts.'" Moreover, avers German professor of ancient history Manfred Clauss, "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own" anyway. And about Sol, University of Alberta history professor Dr. Steven Hijmans writes:

... while the winter solstice on or around the 25th of December was well established in the Roman imperial calendar, there is no evidence that a religious celebration of Sol on that day antedated the celebration of Christmas ... The traditional feast days of Sol, as recorded in the early imperial fasti, were August 8th and/or August 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11^th. 

Then Cambridge professor of classics Mary Beard chimes in, addressing the similarities between Roman pagan festivals (be they Saturn's or some other's) and contemporary Christmas celebration, such as eating heartily, giving presents, and time off from work. She writes:

... lots of people have imagined that the early Christians grafted their festivities onto an old pagan ritual. Maybe they did. But there honestly is no evidence for it, beyond the rough coincidence of dates. And, in fact, it was not until a few centuries after Jesus' birth had got fixed onto 25 December that we see signs of much Christmas merrymaking. In the middle of the sixth century they still thought it necessary to forbid fasting on Christmas day.

So the early Christians preferred fasting to feasting, asceticism to Epicurism. And why would this have changed? Well, there are such things as universals. An affinity for eating, giving and getting presents, and leisure time isn't a pagan thing. It isn't a Christian thing. It is a human thing.

And what of the "rough coincidence of dates"? Well, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Will our standard be that we should dispense with a holy day if we determine that some extinct people at some point in the distant past celebrated something else around the same time of year? A Christian should be happier about the fact that Christian traditions prevailed than he is concerned about the way the battle was won.

Yet there is an even larger point here. The Christmasphobes make a fairly common mistake: They take "pagan" as synonymous with "evil."

If we were to discard all things pagan, I should think we'd plunge ourselves back into the Stone Age. We walk on concrete, record our knowledge with letters, and designate our months with names originated/invented by the pagan Romans. We steer our boats with rudders invented by the pagan Chinese; make calculations with numbers invented by pagan Indians; and create computer graphics, medical imaging, and designs for buildings and bridges using geometry formalized by pagan Greeks. And much of our philosophy (and much of that drawn upon by early Christians, mind you) was generated by pagans such as Aristotle and Plato. Should we "go Taliban" and burn all their works -- and other books thus influenced? A pious Christian must believe that pagans could not have had the whole Truth, but only an ignorant Christian would believe they had no Truth.

As for the truth of Jesus's birth, He likely was not born on December 25. And pious Christian scholars have known this since long before the Christmasphobes learned a bit of history. Yet it didn't stop them -- and shouldn't stop any educated person -- from celebrating Christmas.

George Washington was born on February 22, yet we commemorate his birthday the Monday before. Now, I've yet to hear someone say, "This is a fraud! I shall not yield to this distortion of history, and I'll have you know, Sir, that I intend to show up at work on February 15 -- same as always. Stick that in your revisionist pipe!" I fully expect the Christmasphobes to take this principled stand.

Then, many of us have had relatives who -- bowing to logistical realities, perhaps -- decided to have a child's major birthday celebration on a Saturday or Sunday before or after his actual birthday. Yet I should think the Christmasphobes, finding this intolerable, would look the little tyke in the eye and say, "I will not be attending your birthday party, and you shall get no presents from me! I find the historicity of this celebration suspect!" Please, Christmasphobes, stick to your guns. Don't let a few tears deter you.

Yet if you're a believing Christian and you wouldn't do this to Washington or a young relative, why would you do it to He who you claim is your savior? Remember, too, that with a president or child, we at least know precisely when his birthday is. But since this isn't true of Jesus, the argument against celebrating the Nativity on the 25^th because it "probably isn't the actual day of the Lord's birth" carries even less weight than a corresponding argument would with respect to Washington or little Johnny.

Besides, it's hard to even take the argument seriously. After all, the Christmasphobes do not propose to celebrate the Nativity on what they consider a more historically authentic day.  They simply refuse to celebrate it at all.

The bottom line here, as it is with all birthday celebrations, is not when Jesus was born.

It is that He was born.

And what of whether or not Christmas is biblical? Even if a person subscribes to Sola Scriptura, he should know that tradition precedes the Gospels (not written until 65-80 A.D.). He should know that the present canon of the New Testament wasn't compiled until the year 397 A.D. -- after the institution of Christmas. He should know that there is nothing in Scripture forbidding tradition. There are, however, passages indicating the legitimacy of tradition, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which states, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter [emphasis mine]."

Tragically, we've not been holding to traditions. And in the assault on them, the Left and culturally imperialistic foreign elements have now been shamefully joined by some on the "Right." I can take consolation only in the knowledge that these renders of civilization, who have chosen most odious bedfellows, are not fellow Christians. After all, how do you describe someone who rejects a faith's two highest holy days?

As some among us transition from heresy to apostasy, we have to wonder if any parts of their Christianity will remain sacrosanct to them. Perhaps these lost souls will, somewhere on this road to Perdition, dispense with Jesus himself. And in a way, this is what they have already done.   

I wish you all a very merry and blessed Christmas.                  

Contact Selwyn Duke.

[brent13a]

That is exactly what this bigot is stating.

[BearArms]

Then he’s a child. Grow up, Selwyn.

[Wpin]

“I don’t believe oldenuff2no was exactly equating Christianity to Nazism. All oldenuff2no was trying to imply was that there are certain denominations in christianity that chose to be so intolerant of other forms of christianity that they get labeled as anti-christian (i.e. heretics).
Perhaps he used the wrong analogy....it doesn’t invalidate his points though.”

Can you think of any Christian denominations that can in any way be equivocated with Nazi’s? I think after reading that I saw no point in his post other than to slur Christianity. What other point did he make that seemed valid? Christianity is a very well respected religion in most of the world, that is a fact. It is shunned only by those who are ignorant or evil, that is also a fact. Sometimes we see where people blame Christianity for something that a few individuals do...but that is not just nor appropriate intellectually. It is simply a slur. God gave us all free will, this free will encompasses each whether they are Christian or not. Temptation is an evil enticer, so to speak, that plays into our free will and is a part of each individuals life, again...whether they be Christian or not. Those terms would more adequately provide some argument.

[Vanders9]

I dont think he is assuming that. In fact he quite clearly states that:,p> The bottom line here, as it is with all birthday celebrations, is not when Jesus was born. It is that He was born.

The point is not that you are being "anti-christian" or "anti-american" by not celebrating Christmas - you are free to not do that if you wish. The point is that some of those who hate Christianity USE these kinds of arguments in order to undermine the Judeo-Christian nature of our society. as in:

...the Christmasphobes do not propose to celebrate the Nativity on what they consider a more historically authentic day. They simply refuse to celebrate it at all.

These people don't care about whether it is right or wrong to assign December 25th as a special day to celebrate the birth of Jesus, or even whether it is right to do such a thing at all. They just want to spoil the event for those of us who do wish to celebrate it. As in all things, it is the motives that matter.

[olezip]

"There you have it!" say the critics. "And the kicker is that Jesus wasn't even born on the 25th! Besides, Christmas is unbiblical; there is no command in Scripture to celebrate the Lord's birth. Christmas is just an amalgamation of pagan feasts and the Nativity story in a nicely wrapped, brightly-colored, bow-adorned box."

What a moronic argument!

What I believe is that 2000 years ago the time for the Incarnation was at hand. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

Whether the date selected to celebrate the incarnation was once used for a pagan holiday is NOT relevant. What is relevant is that Jesus entered the world in poverty to teach the lesson of detachment from earthly things.

The angel announced to the shepherds: "Today there is born to you in the town of David a Savior, Who is Christ the Lord."

An angelic chorus sang: "Glory to God in the highest, and peace to His people on earth."

Legend says that shepherds would imitate the song of the angels who announced the birth of Jesus so many years ago. They would call to one another, "Gloria in Excelsis!" Glory to God in the highest!

Merry Christmas!

[hershey]

A recent, puerile National Geographic special on Jesus portrayed him as a forerunner of Che Guevara, and one Baptist black man among the experts said His teachings were akin to the Olympics black power salute. They also dragged in comparisons to Mithras. He wasn’t born in a stable...if born at all, it was probably in a cave. And on and on. Really. It doesn’t matter. He was born, crucified, and died for our sins. He arose to Heaven and sits at the right Hand of God who forgives all our sins.

[Tomato lover]

“As for Christian beliefs and trends in general, I was instructed to avoid controversy with it and just get along.”

Is that as in ‘go along’ to get along????

My husband and I do not celebrate the ‘popular’ Miracle on 34th Street type Holiday. We do not send cards or exchange gifts. Every day we Praise God through the Grace of our Lord Jesus - the only way to the Father.

Store clerks bubbling, Merry Christmas, sound pathetic. I can see the anticipation of gifts in their eyes. We (the population in general) have been infected with the Greed of Christmas. Training the youngsters to expect gifts galore. Just because they look cute running down the hall towards the tree does not mean it produces ‘good fruit.’ It produces a life time of memories that cause us all to expect gifts at Christmas, even if we do not get them.

I would prefer we train the young to look for Jesus return and fill them with a longing to be with Him.

[SamuraiScot]

Christmas in colonial America. Of course they celebrated Christmas...it was just more of a solemn religious celebration than today.

Depends where in the colonies you were. The Puritans disapproved of Christmas. The Massachusetts Bay Colony made celebration of it illegal. This was the case, not because the existing tradition of Christmas was solemn and without feasting, but because it was full of feasting. The Puritans disapproved of feasting itself, because they considered it Catholic. The chronicles of the colony describe the arrest of someone caught feasting on Christmas, denouncing him as a "Christmas man."

(Similarly, 20 years later in England, Parliament, which was Puritan, forbade the celebration of Christmas, requiring shops to stay open as usual, and sending out constables to arrest anyone cooking a pudding. You can't make this up.)

But the rest of the country was not settled by English Puritans. Other parts of Europe, such as Germany, Holland, France, and Spain, did not have the Puritan compulsion, and celebrated the Nativity with joy, feasting, and drink, bringing their traditions with them. I have recordings of American music celebrating Christmas, and while much of it is reverent, much is quite jolly, I assure you. This should be no surprise. When a baby is born, people party. Merry Christmas.

[Petronski]

A good post. What’s Xenia’s new id?

What's the point?

The author is probably one of those Trinitarians anyway.

[Petronski]

But who you going to argue with? Jesus or the Catholic Church?

False dichotomy.

Jesus Christ Himself is the leader of the Catholic Church.

[Uri’el-2012]

And what of whether or not Christmas is biblical? Even if a person subscribes to Sola Scriptura, he should know that tradition precedes the Gospels (not written until 65-80 A.D.). He should know that the present canon of the New Testament wasn't compiled until the year 397 A.D. -- after the institution of Christmas. He should know that there is nothing in Scripture forbidding tradition. There are, however, passages indicating the legitimacy of tradition, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which states, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter [emphasis mine]."

The Canon was complete very much prior to 397CE.

When Paul was talking about Traditions,
since Paul was a Jewish Pharisee,
What kind of Tradition was Paul talking about ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Petronski]

...Paul was a Jewish Pharisee...

Well, Saul certainly was.

But St. Paul is Christian, a father of the Catholic Church.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>...Paul was a Jewish Pharisee...

Well, Saul certainly was.

But St. Paul is Christian, a father of the Catholic Church.

Yah'shua ( Jesus ) was and is a Jewish Rabbi.
When He returns he will rule the world
as a Jewish King from Jerusalem.

Those non-jews who follow Him are grafted in
as it it is spelled out in Paul to the Romans.

"christianity" was hi jacked by Pagans at Nicea in 325CE.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Petronski]

Those who believe Jesus is Christ are Christians.

St. Paul, as a father of the Catholic Church, was and is a Christian.

"christianity" was hi jacked by Pagans at Nicea in 325CE.

That's a keeper. There is no legitimate Christianity? Nowhere?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****He wasn’t born in a stable...if born at all, it was probably in a cave. And on and on. ****

I’ve seen dry caves used for animal shelter. A stable could easily be in just such a cave. Some people are just looking for loopholes to enforce their own doubt.

[Uri’el-2012]

h>He wasn’t born in a stable...if born at all, it was probably in a cave. And on and on.

I’ve seen dry caves used for animal shelter. A stable could easily be in just such a cave. Some people are just looking for loopholes to enforce their own doubt.

Both a stable or a cave would fulfill the requirements for the
celebration of the YHvH commanded Feast of Tabernacles or Booths.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Uri’el-2012]

This may be news to you:

Yah'shua is a Jew so is Peter, and all of the apostles including Paul.

During the millienumium, Yah'shua will reign the world from
the throne of King David from Jerusalem.

Non Jews need to be grafted-in the "called out ones" of YHvH.

Or do you reject the clear teaching of Paul in Romans ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****”christianity” was hi jacked by Pagans at Nicea in 325CE.

That’s a keeper. There is no legitimate Christianity? Nowhere? ****

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who claims Nicean doctrines were NOT kept two hundred years before Nicea even though they were!

[Uri’el-2012]

While I support the celebration of Christmas, a clear reading of the Holy Word of G-d would lead to another date.

A date commanded by YHvH with clear Biblical meaning and understanding.

Chanukah is a great time for followers of the Jewish Messiah to celebrate.
The eight day Feast of Chanukah echoes of the eight days of the Feast of Tabernacles
Chanukah was most likely when the "light of the world"
(John 8:12) entered human form and tabernacled among us.

Feast of Tabernacles is the birth day of Yah'shua.

This question is answered when you believe and trust
the Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1.

Yah'shua's birth on Sukkot
(Sukkot is the Feast of Tabernacles or booths,
where we live in temporary shelters.
Sukkot is when YHvH took on a temporary
garment to be with His People
and to die as the Lamb of G-d on Pesach
in order to bring salvation to all
who would call on His Name:
(Romans 10:13 & Joel 2:32)
Yah'shua ( YHvH is become my salvation)).

Ps. 18:2, 46; 27:1; 35:9; 38:22; 88:1;
118:14; 119:174; 140:7; Isa. 12:2; 56:1;
61:10; Mic. 7:7; Hab. 3:18

Sukkot as the date is supported by Elizabeth's
pregnancy of John the Immerser.
The time sequence is outlined by the
Holy Word of Elohim in Luke 1 with Zacharias.

Zacharias served as a high priest and
based on his tribe, we know when he served
(1 Chronicles 24:7-18) and when he was
struck dumb and when John was conceived.

John would have been born on Pesach.
Most Jews believed that Elijah
would come at Pesach to announce
the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5).

Factor in when Miriam visited her cousin Elizabeth,
Elizabeth was six months pregnant (Luke 1:26)
Thus the timing of Yah'shua's birth can be ascertained.

John (1:14) tells us that Yah'shua was made flesh
and tabernacled among us.

The word "dwelt" in the Koine Greek is:

σκηνόω Strong's G4637 - skēnoō
1) to fix one's tabernacle,
have one's tabernacle,
abide (or live) in a tabernacle (or tent),
tabernacle
2) to dwell

Eight days after the beginning of Sukkot is
another Holy Feast Day called Shemini Atzeret.

Eight days after a Jewish male is born he is circumcised.

After the Eighth day comes the the most Joyous day:
Simchat Torah or
the rejoicing in the Torah (The Word of Elohim).

Nine months back from Sukkot is Chanukah
where the light entered the temple.

Biblical Dates for the Birth of Yochanan the Immerser
and for the Conception and Birth of Yeshua HaMashiach

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Petronski]

Yah'shua is a Jew so is Peter, and all of the apostles including Paul.

And since they believe Jesus is Christ, they are all Christians...Catholic Saints and fathers of the Catholic Church.

Or do you reject the clear teaching of Paul in Romans ?

Of course not. I reject your contorted, excruciatingly bizarre personal interpretation of Scripture (or, that is, your redacted version of Scripture).