Posted on 12/24/2013 5:52:42 AM PST by Kaslin
One of the most popular theories and commonly taught explanations for why Christmas is on Dec. 25th is because the early church placed Christian holidays at times of Roman celebration to co-opt the local pagan festivals.
Christians placed Christmas on Dec. 25th to co-opt Saturnalia, the mid-winter festival, or possibly the Festival of the Unconquered Sun -- Sol Invictus. The theory went that Christians could get the heathen to convert by co-opting their own holidays.
There is one problem -- it sounds more convincing than it is. These theories did not start growing until the 12th century and only became popular once comparative religion became trendy after the 18th century. Going back to the earliest Christian church finds evidence that Christmas, though not initially celebrated, had starting being commemorated well before the Feast of the Unconquered Sun's creation for entirely Christian reasons.
In Egypt, less than 300 years after Christ's death, some Christians celebrated his birth in the spring. As the Biblical Archeology Society has noted, the earliest references to Christmas come at about 200 A.D., at a time Christians were not incorporating other religious traditions into their own. By 300 A.D., many Christians were celebrating his birth around Dec. 25th. Within 100 years, Christmas was on the calendar record. Christians looked to December because the early church was far more interested in Jesus's death. His death and resurrection is what matters to the Gospel, and that was the date the early church focused on.
"Around 200 A.D., Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan in the year Jesus died was the equivalent to March 25 in the Roman calendar," said Andrew McGowan last year at the Biblical Archaeology Society. That would be the day of Crucifixion. The math from there is rather simple. Nine months later would be Dec. 25. Early church history held as fact that the prophets and martyrs of the church were conceived on the day they died. So if Christ died on March 25, it was also the anniversary of his conception.
Separately, and more directly from the Bible, Luke 1 tells us Zacharias, John the Baptist's father, was in the priestly division of Abijah. Based on a calculation of this and the division of priest in the temple in 70 A.D. when the temple fell, a number of early Church historians presumed Zacharias would have been in the temple in early October. Later historians, however, speculate it would have been June. The Gospel of Luke tells us when Zacharias left the temple, his wife conceived. "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazaerth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David," Luke 1:25-26 notes.
Six months after Zacharias left the temple would be March as Mary's time of conception. Fast forward nine months and again we find ourselves in December. With the very earliest Church fathers settling on March 25th as Christ's death and believing fully that Christ's death would occur on the anniversary of his conception, the early church reinforced its belief well before there is any written accusation or evidence of the church incorporating Saturnalia or Sol Invictus into its celebrations. It is important to note, however, that most scholars reject setting Christ's birth to Zacharias's temple service because of problems related to really knowing when he was there.
But there are three final points. One can look at all of this and conclude the church fathers got it wrong. But the real question is whether they themselves thought they got it wrong. They were pretty sure they were right. The earliest Christians refused to celebrate birthdays, but by 300 A.D., there was growing evidence the Church had noted Christ's birthday around December 25th.
Second, some of the earliest traditions of the early Church held that Christ was born on what would be a Wednesday. This year, we too will celebrate Christ's birth on a Wednesday.
Finally, the date of Christ's birth is not important. What is important is that he is.
Anyway, it is when Santa comes!!
thanks
Here is a link to the storm earlier this month with over two feet of snow in this area. Shepherds aren't stupid. Such a storm would decimate their flock.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.563057
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.
Well, they would have died in the wool....
It’s always interesting that the question is never addressed, did the apostles teach it? Did God institute it? I don’t care what your view or practice on holidays is. But the lack of concern of scripture teaching and practice is rather telling it seems.
Which is worse, non-believers attempting to disprove the existence of God by questionable science or the religious attempting to prove His existence by questionable history? You believe or you don’t. If you require proof to support your faith, you have none.
The New Testament more than once refers to Christ being
born and “tabernacling” among us—ie, strongly
suggesting that he was born during Sukkot—the festival
which commemorated the time when Israel lived in tents
in the wilderness, and God Himself personally dwelt among them.
(that would place his birth in Sept.-Oct)
You are welcome
Calendars used to be such messy things, and even now, they are not entirely perfect, with an artificial day created every four years, and the measurement being determined by two different means, the sidereal calendar and the solar calendar. Add to that the irregularity of the lunar cycles with the defined length of this construction of what constitutes a “year”, and there is plenty of room for sloppiness in reckoning.
Stealing the dates of a pagan holiday was about as good an idea as any for, first, displacing the pagan celebrations, and secondly, finding some “common ground” by which to make religious conversions.
It is no coincidence that “Kwanzaa” has also tried to hijack the Christmas holiday.
Finally, the date of Christ's birth is not important. What is important is that he is.
Martin Luther sez? Wasn’t he the Catholic monk/priest who thought Mary and Joseph disobeyed God in their marriage?
They didn’t have barns. The sheep were always outside.
Someone or group would point out problems if it was August 12th.
See “Bethlehemstar.net” for a well researched explanation of the Star, when it was first seen, when Jesus was born, when the Wise men visited him (our Christmas celebration) and when he rose.
Nailed it.
I hate to repeat anything that Hillary said BUT “what difference does it make?”
Christ was born, he died for us, he is the Son of God. We celebrate his birth and his death. That is all!
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.