Christmas is not pagan

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I read the article. I found it mostly full of the typical canards.

Listen, the author of the article has an a priori commitment to celebrating the Mass of Christ, because he is orthodox, and a priest in that tradition. He therefore is not going to follow the facts to reach an independent conclusion. He is going to reach a conclusion, then look for whatever facts he can to support it, hence petitio principii, or begging the question, which is a logical fallacy.

I don't truck with that kind of thinking.

You mean like 95% of Pentecostals??

That's cool, I get it.

[seguidordejesus]

Originally Posted by Originalist

But I noticed you really did not deal with his points on substance

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

His family was in Jerusalem that day. It is evident they were there for that purpose. Let me ask you, were they wrong fr doing so?

Nothing is evident. You assume too much, and in so doing, you presume upon your Savior. Does that not mean anything to you?

Where does the text state "His family was there"? In fact, there is no such reference. You've somehow made that up in your mind or become convinced by someone else who made it up.

Here is the text. Read it carefully WITHOUT reading between the lines for things that aren't there.

John 10:22-23 (ESV),

22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.

Where is the mention of Christ's family? Where does it state He was there to celebrate?

In fact, the Greek term for "dedication" (there is no word there meaning "feast of") is a hapax legomena in the NT, which are notoriously difficult to translate. As such, the text simply reads "At that time, the renewal took place at Jerusalem. It was winter".

See:

https://biblehub.com/greek/1456.htm

It may indeed be referring to Hanukkah. But perhaps not. I have found at least six uses in the LXX of the same Greek word used in John 10:22, in referencing the dedication of the Second Temple in Ezra (6:16-17) and Nehemiah (12:27), and in Psalm 30:1, again, about the temple, but also of Nebuchadnezzar's dedication of his golden image/idol (Daniel 3:2) and of Belshazzar's feast/banquet in Daniel 5:1.

See:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexi...-1/#lexResults
https://www.studylight.org/interline...alms/30-1.html
https://biblehub.com/sepd/daniel/5.htm

Otherwise, the Festival of Dedication doesn't get called Hanukkah, that is, using a Hebrew word, until the Jewish Talmud, as contained in the Megillat Taanit, even though it was considered a holiday by the time 2 Maccabees was written (first written in Greek and a part of the LXX).

See:

https://www.sefaria.org/Megillat_Ta'...slev.7?lang=bi
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ond-maccabees/

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

I did not back peddle. You simply missed the point of the thread. The point is, there is nothing "pagan" about celebrating Christ coming into this world on December 25, October 31, or any other day one wishes. As for the actual "Christmas" day brought about by post-Apostolic church leaders, there was nothing "pagan" about that either, though I disagree with some things they taught, obviously.

Brother, there is a different between missing a point and disregarding it as invalid.

If you, of your own free will and opinion, randomly picked, out of all the possible days one could choose from, and made that day the day you personally decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus, you would have a point worth considering. But you didn't pick that day for your own reasons. You did it because a group of people, of whom you do not belong, as far as I know, decided to make that day the day to celebrate Christ's birth, upon some very flimsy, even specious reasoning.

And even that would have been fine, if they had randomly, and in isolation, chosen that day. But there is no evidence that they did so. Instead, they chose a day that perfectly corresponds to the chosen birthdate for a Roman deity named Sol Invictus, which was consecrated to him in 274 AD (and they didn't do so until after the heathen and pagan emperor Constatine*). And since there is no de facto evidence that anyone claiming/professing to be a Christian celebrated that day before that year, and in fact, not for many years afterward, gives that particular date a pagan tilt when to comes to celebrating the birth of a religious symbol/being.

These things didn't happen in a vacuum.

* And before anyone cries foul about me calling Constantine a heathen and a pagan, you simply don't know your history. At best he was a synergist. But make no mistake. Long after his supposed "conversion" he was still worshipping the Roman pantheon (He minted coins as late as 325-326 with the legend Soli Invicto Comiti. Both a highly valuable gold coin called a solidus, and a gold medallion show Constantine twinned, that is, jugate to Sol Invictus, to suggest that he was on equal footing with the god, even dedicated to him, officially minted and created by him in his reign. And this says nothing of Constantine's Arch, which has three different depictions of Sol Invictus, and was positioned in front of a Colossal of Sol Invictus, as well).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Originalist

But I noticed you really did not deal with his points on substance

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

You two are being ridiculous. Seeing your positions left in tatters, you count on this blog author to save you.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by seguidordejesus

You mean like 95% of Pentecostals??

That's cool, I get it.

Pentecostals have their share of problems, illogic occasionally being one of them. I am very happy to not be a Pentecostal, by the way.

So, what's your point? It only shows that the author of the blog is no better than the Pentecostals you deride. Cool. Well done.

[votivesoul]

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2...gan-just-stop/

Regarding the article, he first writes:

Well, it’s time for a good Christmas rant. This requires a rant, because every year, we see the same ignorant silliness. (Sorry, but it’s just true.)

This shows his stance and attitude. He isn't interested in an honest and contempt-free approach to the topic. He wants to rant, meaning, his mind is already made up and he won't be convinced otherwise, hence my claim of his a priori commitment and the fact the article is an unfortunate example of a logical fallacy, i.e. petitio principii, that is, begging the question.

His next sentence is telling:

Supposedly, Christmas is secretly pagan, secretly syncretist, secretly a co-opting of pagan stuff and ignorantly claiming it to be Christian.

Already he is historically mistaken. There is nothing secret about Christmas being pagan. That has been assumed by scholars since at least the 1700's but was first suggested possibly going all the way back to the 12th century, to an admittedly undated marginal comment made in a tract written by a Syrian Bishop named Jacob Bar-Salibi. The comment reads:

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part. Accordingly, when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day.

His next sentence is even more ridiculous. He writes:

But the truth about these things is so available that it’s literally staring out at you even from Wikipedia.

The truth is, Wikipedia has all the opposing information that undermines his position, too. So, no appeal to authority here (which is also a logical fallacy, by the way).

Finally, getting to the meat of the article, and his list of proofs...

The Christmas Tree

He writes

What if I told you that most Christians throughout history did not celebrate Christmas with trees? Christmas trees have started to spread all over the world, but that is a recent development and not something most Christmas-celebrating Christians would have even heard of for most of history. Christmas trees were a purely localized phenomenon for a long time.

So what that a large portion of Christians have celebrated Christmas without trees (though the claim is certainly debatable)? They eventually began to do, and the practice has received sanction from the author's very own religious tradition, which he should know.

The Very Reverend Archimandrite Alexander Kile writes:

The Christmas tree comes to us from the Gospel from the family tree of Jesus Christ, which is read the Sunday before Christmas in the Orthodox Churches. During Byzantine times as the manuscripts testify, Christmas trees were placed in the churches in state of the ornaments they had the prophets icons. On the bottom of the tree the icon of Prophet Jesse on the top a star and in the middle of it the icon of Christ blessing with His two hands.

Even today, the Ecumenical Patriarch on Christmas wears that sakkos called ” O Sakkos Tou Iessae” The mantle of Jesse where is embroidered with gold threads on burgundy velvet material the tree with the Prophets and Jesse at the bottom and Christ on the top.

See:

https://www.pravmir.com/christmas-traditions/

Furthermore, according to the Orthodox as shown above, Christmas trees are an outgrowth of the Jesse Trees, the earliest known example dating to 1086 AD.

See:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070125...I_williams.pdf

So, the idea that this is a modern, localized development is hogwash. Jesse Tree iconography is found all throughout Europe dating back hundreds of years. Clearly, the author is ignorant or willfully deceptive.

Now, the idea of a Christmas tree didn't gain major fame and popularity until after the marriage of German-born Prince Albert to English Queen Victoria in the 19th century, but that is beside the point.

See:

https://www.britannica.com/plant/Christmas-tree

The blog author continues:

And it’s not like pagans invented trees or even invented cutting them down and bringing them inside. Are you really saying that pagans own trees?

This is what's known as a red herring. No one who believes disputes the idea that God made trees. That isn't the issue. God made the trees that idolaters carve into idols. Does that give us right to own idols in our home? God made the coca plant. Shall we then snort cocaine?

So, if a particular way of using a tree is found to be pagan, or some derivative of a pagan practice, that makes any similar or identical use of a tree pagan, or derivative of a pagan practice. I bet no one reading this, or a member of AFF, would, for example, dance around a maypole while listening to Christian worship music, even though the maypole was cut from a tall, straight pine that God made. But some of you might bring a pine into your house, decorate it in the pagan traditional way and claim it's a symbol of your Savior's birth, or at least acceptable to Him as a part of your Nativity celebrations. And that's telling. If the first isn't acceptable, neither is the second, even though "pagans" don't "own trees".

Next, he addresses Yuletide Logs. He writes:

...do you really expect me to believe that burning a log in a fireplace has some unbreakable pagan connection that Christians just shouldn’t do? Like, burning logs is pagan? Maybe Christians would like to be warm, too.

Again, he veers into red herring territory, because this isn't simply about have a burning log in one's fireplace come December 25th. Yule traditions go back over 1,000 years and are more than just Germanic in origin. They also stem from Norse mythology, with "the Yule One" being one of the titles of Odin. Aspects of Christmas that stem from Yule traditions include: the twelve days of Christmas, hanging holly, hanging mistletoe, the yule log, yule singing or wassailing (i.e. caroling) the yule goat, and the yule boar, which has become the tradition of having ham as the main meat of the Christmas dinner. In fact, the word "yule" has become a synonym for Christmas in Scandanavia (look up Julebord). Oh, and its date just happens to be at the Winter Solstice, right around December 25th.

Furthermore, King Haakon I of Norway, who is credited with the Christianization of Scandanavia intentionally rescheduled the originally two-month celebration with Christmas, to overlap. You can read about it in the Saga of Haakon the Good.

See:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/heim/05hakon.htm
https://historythings.com/what-is-yuletide-anyway/

_______________________________________________

When I have time, I will continue this.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Originalist

But I noticed you really did not deal with his points on substance

YOU started the thread making a claim. You were asked to support your claim. You refused.


You lost any credibility from that point forward. All of Votivesoul's posts are therefore meant for the readers more than anyone else (namely, you)

Of course, you won't listen much less consider anything that contradicts your enjoyment of the Mass of the Nativity, so naturally you will squeak and squawk every couple of posts and continue blindly in your pagan traditions patting yourself on the back thinking you have "won".

Enjoy your "victory".

[votivesoul]

Continued from Post #47.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2...gan-just-stop/

The author of the blog then addresses the giving of gifts on Christmas.

How is giving a present pagan? How is giving presents on a holiday pagan? Just because there is a similarity between two things doesn’t mean that one is a cause of the other or that one is based on the other. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

And what if I told you that giving presents on Christmas is not a universal Christian practice? Yes, there is such a thing as Christmas without presents — and not just when you threaten your kids with it, either.

So, yes, you can have Christmas without presents. Most Christians always have.

This is the entirety of the entry. I first note the similar use of red herring. It's actually something he relies on throughout the whole article. But I also notice he gives no proof or evidence to his assertions. What does "Most Christian always have" mean in light of no actual historical evidence to back it up?

But I digress. Again, it's not merely the giving of gifts that is an issue. The issue is why and where the tradition to give gifts at Christmas comes from. Many assume it's related to the legends surrounding Saint Nicholas of Myra. And legends are what they are. The man himself was a historical figure, but the story of his charitable gifts comes from a chronicle called the Life of Saint Nicholas by Michael the Archimandrite, which was written some 600 years after the real Nicholas lived (See: https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who...-archimandrite). However, the earliest manuscript we have for the material dates to 1348 (See ibid).

In any case, there is no link to the legends of Saint Nicholas's charitable giving (they were related to anonymous financing of the dowries of three sisters) and Christmas. And on top of that, in the Christmas tradition, Saint Nicholas was eventually conflated with Sinterklaas, which is to say, Santa Claus. Furthermore, the story of Sinterklaas/Santa Claus was conflated with a much earlier pagan motif related to Odin and the Wild Hunt, in which Odin would fly through the sky on his flying, six-legged horse Sleipnir, while his two servant crows Huginn and Muninn would swoop down to the various chimneys of the various homes that Odin flew over, in order to eavesdrop and report back to Odin all the good and bad the people had committed.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinter...Ghesquiere1989

So then, upon what other basis does Christmas draw its tradition of gift giving? Some argue it's based on the gifts the Magi gave to Jesus when He was a small boy. But in point of fact, during the Roman celebration of Saturn, called Saturnalia (celebrated from 12-17 to 12-23), gifts were given by the participants to one another, pre-dating the Christian tradition, which adopted and co-opted the practice in the 4th century.

See: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/saturnalia

So, it's not just the giving of gifts, end of story, but it's the re-enactment of offering gifts due to a tradition founded on, then borrowed from, the worship of Saturn, the Roman God of the Agriculture that is in question. You might argue, well, just because pagans do it, it doesn't mean we can't. I mean, they breathe, and eat, and marry and have kids and go to work, too, so does that mean we shouldn't? First, that's absurd, because that isn't the issue. The issue is adopting pagan customs and rites associated with the worship of devils and implementing those same customs and rites for the worship of God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul even wrote that we cannot partake of the Cup and Table of Christ while at the same time partaking of the Cup and Table of Devils. He wrote it provokes the Lord to jealousy (1 Corinthians 10:20-22).

So, for the record, for all who are reading along, Originalist or seguidordejesus, or otherwise, let's just say, there's only less than a 1% chance I'm right. You're going to risk provoking the Lord to jealousy by becoming a worshipper of demons? No need to answer publicly, but I hope you sincerely consider or reconsider your ways, as it were. What you do is up to you, no skin off my nose.

Next, the blog writer asks if the accusation against Christmas being pagan is about commercialism. He opines:

Hey, I lament the commercialism. I do. But it’s just sort of dumb to claim that people who celebrate Christmas badly have successfully co-opted the feast day. So I don’t know how this one got in here, but I’ve definitely heard people call Christmas shopping and all its modern American insanity “pagan.” But whatever.

So, yes, you can also have Christmas without crazy Christmas shopping. Most Christians always have.

This man isn't even paying attention to his own thoughts. Where does the commercialism come from? Where does the inordinate spending, the running up of credit card debt, and etc. come from? It comes from three main areas:

1.) Gifts, which, see directly above
2.) Decorations, which, see Post #47
3.) Food, which, see Post #47, as well.

People spend way too much money on gifts as borrowed from the Roman Festival of Saturnalia, they decorate their homes with trees, and tinsel, and lights, and holly, and mistletoe, and such like, which stems from Yuletide, and they feast on various meals and dinners, much of which stems from both. So again, the root is pagan. If it looks like a pagan, acts like a pagan, talks like a pagan, it's pagan.

Next, he addresses Santa Claus.

Look, Santa may not be real, but St. Nicholas sure is — he was a fourth-century Christian bishop in what is now Turkey.

How did he get mixed up in Christmas, anyway? It’s because his feast day is December 6, which is just a few weeks from Christmas and thus during the Nativity Fast (a 40-day fast that begins on November 15). And like any good Christian saint, he did indeed help poor people with gifts, but they weren’t toys or candy but rather money to rescue people from being sold into slavery, etc.

And did you know that in some Christian cultures, the home-visiting, gift-giving saint is a different guy altogether? In Greece, for instance, it’s St. Basil, and he doesn’t come on Christmas but rather on January 1, which is his feast day.

So, yes, you can also have Christmas without Santa. Most Christians always have.

More red herring, but this time, some intellectual dishonesty to go with it. Saint Nicholas is Santa Claus, from the Dutch word Sinterklaas, meaning Saint Nicholas in English. They are one and the same figure in the Christmas tradition. And the gift giving, as shown above, is mere legend. The quote above about Saint Basil is irrelevant to the question at hand. Doesn't matter which saint is tied to the Mass of Christ or when their "feast days" have been scheduled in the liturgical year. None of this has anything to do with Christ's birthday. It's traditions and doctrines of men nullifying the commandments of God.

Next, he calls into question the possibility of December 25th being the issue. I've already addressed the faulty dating methods in Post #23, on page 3, here: https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...5&postcount=23

And, by the way, it might surprise him to learn that December 25th, according to the Julian Calendar used at the time of Christ, was considered the Winter Solstice. Just thought I'd mention that, in case anyone didn't know.

See: https://historyandarchaeologyonline....-celebrations/

From that link is a very telling image, found under the foundations of Saint Peter's Basilica. It is a mosaic depicting Jesus as Sol Invictus, that is, Helios in the Greek Pantheon, or Mithras, in the Persia. I reproduce it here:



Underneath the image at the site above, is this damning quote from John Chrysostom:

They call it the birthday of the unconquered. Who indeed is so unconquered as our lord? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.

This quote shows that 4th century Christians purposefully and with obvious intention, co-opted and made use of pagan ideas and themes in their worship of the Lord Jesus.

Next, the blogger inquires after Saturnalia. He writes:

Well, that was originally on December 17 and eventually extended through December 23. Are you saying that that week in December that happens to fall near Christmas on December 25 makes Christmas pagan?

Really? This would be like saying that, if your birthday falls around the first weekend of September, you must belong to the organized labor movement because your birthday is near Labor Day. Facepalm, folks.

One must remember that Jullius Caesar changed the calendar, so that December 25th as he made it out to be, actually corresponds to our December 21st, which then puts it in the range of Saturnalia. Otherwise, see above.

Continued in the next post...

[votivesoul]

...Continued from the above post

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2...gan-just-stop/

Finally, for our purposes, he concludes with these three arguments:

- Is this about the winter solstice?
- Is this about religious holidays in general?
- Is this about [insert any other symbol or custom that has been associated at some point with some pagan religion]?

True to his constant, he deflects with more red herrings and intellectual dishonesty. Regarding the winter solstice, he writes:

Before the introduction of Sol Invictus in AD 274, there were no pagan solstice celebrations going on near where Christians were. (True story.)

Except for Saturnalia and in particular, Brumalia, which was derived from a Greek celebration to Dionysus/Bacchus, the Greek God of Wine and Orgies.

He goes on:

Says who? Are you saying that Christians ought not pay attention to the rhythms of the natural world that they believe God created for His people to live in? Really? Nature stuff is pagan? Please.

God has a calendar, and in it, He does not prescribe the attending to solstices or equinoxes or gives them any meaning. Rather, He cares about His festivals, and our following of them as typological of His Son's Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Return as the Holy Spirit, and the In-Dwelling that return causes.

Regarding item number 2 above, He writes in brief:

The idea that certain days should be set aside for special religious occasions isn’t unique to pagans. Ancient Jews did this, too, and were even commanded by God to do so. So when early Christians decided to start having Christian feast days, they did so originally based on the Jewish inheritance, celebrating feasts such as Pascha (a new, Christian Passover, celebrating the resurrection of Jesus) and Pentecost.

Marking time with religious significance isn’t pagan. It’s just human. To deny this part of our religious consciousness is essentially to deny that time and creation in general can be sanctified by the presence of God.

The same God who created all days, and commanded certain of them to be celebrated or observed, just as the author attempts to acknowledge, also commanded we not just abstain from, but also to abhor idolatry, in all its forms. And in that ancient world in which God commanded certain days to be celebrated and observed, you had best believe that the heathen and pagan cultures surrounding Israel had their holy days, too, and whenever Israel or Judah fell into idolatry, one of the first things they did was abandon their ancestral festivals for the holy days of the heathens and pagans, participating in all the lewd and violent acts demanded by the evil spirits who inhabited the idols Israel and/or Judah came to worship. So, if anyone thinks that God is okay with His people doing their own thing, worshipping Him however and in this case, WHENEVER they wanted, in their own ways, in their own times, especially as it pertained to idolatry, you, my friend, are loco/loca.

One man was found picking up sticks on a Sabbath, and God commanded he be stoned to death. Nadab and Abihu brought the wrong kind of fire into the Tabernacle, and God killed them. Korah whined and complained about Moses and Aaron leading the priesthood, and God not only killed him, but all his relatives. When Israel mingled with the Moabites and participated in their worship at Baal Peor, God killed 23,000 of them. This is Bible. Presuming to worship God however one likes, in whatever way, according to whatever calendar one finds convenient, is a clear violation of the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and all that the Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant stand for. Toward the end of Revelation, it is clear that idolaters will have their part in the lake which burns with fire and sulfur.

Finally, for point 3 above, the author has the audacity to write the following:

...we Christians are all about baptizing people (and, metaphorically, other things) and changing them to be Christian. Christianity is the religion that’s all about changing stuff and making it Christian.

So even if that thing was once pagan in some way, we’re taking it and making it not pagan now. So there. That’s what we do. BAM. It’s not pagan any more, that thing. It’s been transformed. So it’s Christian now.

At this point, this dude couldn't be a greater cheerleader for Team Pagan if he tried. Pagans worship demons (which he knows, as he admits later on in his article). You cannot baptize the worship of a demon and make it Christian. You cannot take pagan worship and make any of it holy or pure, any more than you can burn your child in the belly of Chemosh and call it good.

Let the man's own words condemn him:

Real paganism — the real historical kind, not the kind you buy on that shelf at Barnes and Noble next to the tarot cards, nor the kind you hear whispered about down at the “New Age Shoppe” — resolved into one basic action: Making sacrifices (often of animals, but always of food) to false gods and sharing that meal with them so that you can commune with the demon who is masquerading as a god worthy of worship. That’s what actual, real historical paganism is at its very core.

His failure to see his own unfortunate disconnect is sad. I hope he recovers himself someday.

He goes on:

When we Christians say that we worship Jesus Christ and celebrate His birth because we welcome His coming into the world, we really mean it. We’re not worshiping anyone or anything else.

Take away all that is pagan, all that not only I, but many others have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt truly is pagan, starting with December 25th, and moving on from there, and go and worship the Lord and celebrate His birth all you want. But as it stands, the Mass of Christ is rife with paganism, and anyone participating in those things needs to know that.

Peace and God bless,

Aaron