Posted on 12/10/2008 10:51:09 AM PST by Between the Lines
I think actually the area of old Babylon was under the control of the Parthian Empire at this time, not Rome.
Let me be clear—I am not wholly discounting the idea that the Christians of the 300s could have coopted the date of a pagan festival. Frankly, I’ve never been as terrified of that prospect as others seem to be—heck, our months and our days of the week are all pagan as well.
But I do think that we have to be historically strict here and not make conclusions for which there is no evidence. It’s not enough to just rely on hazy, vague connections across various pagan cultures; if there is evidence that the pagans of the Roman Empire used this date prior to Christianity, then fine, we can say it was probably borrowed. Otherwise we must admit we are being speculative and going beyond what the data allows.
NO, NO!
Please don’t change it ... MY birthday is June 16th and we all know what people who have birthdays around Christmas can expect.
NOTHING!
Oh, and you may have a point about the solstice, in that that was a natural phenomenon that was well-known to the Romans. But I haven’t been able to find whether it was dedicated to a pagan deity.
It was interesting researching it on the Internet. There are so many different takes on the origins of December 25th. as Jesus’ birthday celebration. I’m just glad He came, not when.
Regards And Merry Christmas .....
Jane
Ah.. I always love it when scientist do religion.
“which the Bible states three wise men followed to find Jesus”
Not to be nit-picky, but the Bible does not state this.
It would have been a phenomenon well known to ancient astronomers, but would the average citizen of Roman have know about it or cared? I have not seen any evidence of that. If you have some source, could he please reference it. I would like to read it.
Some reference in literature would be helpful, but I am not aware of any thing in Plautus, Terence, Cicero, Catullus, Horace, Virgil, Livy, Seneca, or Juvenal. If December 21 was a big religious celebration, would it not stand to reason that the great Latin writers would have mentioned it.
And if December 21 was not a great religious celebration, what were the dates of the great religious celebrations of ancient Roman? Surely one of those great celebrations would have been a better date to celebrate Christmas than some obscure date with no celebration at all.
All of the Eastern Orthodox Churches celebrate Christmas on December 25. However, some of those churches use the Western Gregorian calendar and some use the older Julian calendar, even though all the civil governments use the Gregorian calendar. These two calendars are out of synch by 13 days. The Greek Orthodox Church uses the Gregorian calendar and celebrates Christmas when we do. The Russian Orthodox church uses the Julian calendar and celebrates on our January 7, but their December 21.
I'm not aware of any reference either, which is why I'm skeptical of this particular argument. You ask a good question. Would the average Roman know of the solstice or care? I'm not sure.
And if December 21 was not a great religious celebration, what were the dates of the great religious celebrations of ancient Roman? Surely one of those great celebrations would have been a better date to celebrate Christmas than some obscure date with no celebration at all.
I'd think so, yes. Here is a Roman civil calendar dating from 354; I don't know of an earlier one. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chronography_of_354_06_calendar.htm
Interestingly enough, the summer solstice is mentioned, but not the winter one.
You are confusing 2 issues. The historical nature of Jesus Christ, and his being the Son of God. I can easily believe the first without believing the 2nd. The petard you speak of must be in your own eye to not see that distinction.
This is very interesting. I enjoy the history.
Most of these speculations about the origin of celebrating Christmas start with the premise that the Church needed to appropriate a pagan holiday for its own. I think that premise is wrong. Rather, the church in her wisdom choose to honor the birth of the savior of the world. What ever reasons she had for choosing December 25 are secondary and perhaps in the end irrelevant. Merry Christmas every body.
True - it’s an interesting study into the reasons for December 25th.
Your reasoning is flawed. If you believe in the historical nature of Jesus Christ, you necessarily believe he is the Son of God. On the other had you can believe in the historical nature of Jesus of Nazareth and believe he was only a man.
You got me.
It was my word choice that was flawed. I should not have used Christ in describing the historical man.
See what happens when you let us agnostics post on the religion forum :-)
Yes, it is very easy to say what you mean, and very difficult to mean what you say. Merry Christmas.
Excellent article. The early Church believed that March 25th was a most important day.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01542a.htm
"[T]he ancient martyrologies assign to the 25th of March the creation of Adam and the crucifixion of Our Lord; also, the fall of Lucifer, the passing of Israel through the Red Sea and the immolation of Isaac."
It really ought to be restored as a Holy Day of Obligation.
Self Ping
‘Jesus was born in June’, astronomers claim
telegraph.co.uk | December 9, 2008
Posted on 12/09/2008 11:28:16 AM PST by Free ThinkerNY
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2145642/posts
It doesn’t matter on wit what day Jesus the Christ was born.
But it does matter what day you were born again in faith that HE is the way the truth and the life.
bump
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.