The history of the origins of Christmas and St. Nicholas

[mark kennedy]

I know. I'm just playing the trumpet. The practices people use to celebrate Christmas have pagan origins-candles and trees and reindeer and such. But Christmas is about celebrating our Lord's birth. Not presents and drinking egg nog. I ask my Confirmation students each year something like this:
When you have a birthday, you are likely to get presents. So when we celebrate Jesus' birthday, how come we get presents? Then I ask them to think about what they will give Jesus for His birthday. I mean, the Wise Men came bearing gifts for Him, why not us?

I know this year I'm getting the grand kids some things I normally wouldn't. The two youngest I'm getting bunk beds, that sort of thing. I'm a little like Charlie Brown, I think Christmas is too commercialized. On the other hand I'm getting a lot of over time at work so I suppose there's a whole cost and benefit way of looking at this.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Much has already been said, so I'd likely be repeating others. But something I haven't seen mentioned (though I only managed to get to page 3 of this thread so far) is that the earliest mention of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is the Philocalian Calendar (354 AD), which lists the Dies Natalis on December 25th as well as mentioning Christmas on December 25th. The Philocalian Calendar, an illuminated codex containing a calendar for both civil events and Christian celebrations.

Aurelian is the one who instigated the cult of Sol Invictus, but that December 25th was a sacred day to honor Sol Invictus (or any solar deity for that matter) is something that we have no evidence for until the mid 4th century.

The idea that December 25th was chosen for Christ's Nativity is a long-standing popular assumption, but there's no evidence to back it up.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why not just keep YHWH's appointed feasts, as commanded

Because our religion is Christianity, not Judaism. Torah was given exclusively to the Jews as part of the special covenant God made with them at Mt. Horeb. Deuteronomy 5:1-3. I don't celebrate Passover, Sukkot, or Shavuot because those days weren't given to me, or to any Christian, they were given to the Children of Jacob at the mountain when God established them as His covenant nation to inhabit the land of promise.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AFrazier]

Much has already been said, so I'd likely be repeating others. But something I haven't seen mentioned (though I only managed to get to page 3 of this thread so far) is that the earliest mention of the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is the Philocalian Calendar (354 AD), which lists the Dies Natalis on December 25th as well as mentioning Christmas on December 25th. The Philocalian Calendar, an illuminated codex containing a calendar for both civil events and Christian celebrations.

Aurelian is the one who instigated the cult of Sol Invictus, but that December 25th was a sacred day to honor Sol Invictus (or any solar deity for that matter) is something that we have no evidence for until the mid 4th century.

The idea that December 25th was chosen for Christ's Nativity is a long-standing popular assumption, but there's no evidence to back it up.

-CryptoLutheran

The Chronographer of 354 mentions the birth of Christ, saying Hoc cons. dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian. d. Ven. luna xv. Whereas N·INVICTI·CM·XXX is the "birth of the unconquered," it doesn't directly specify Natali Sol Invicti, which is the birth of the unconquered sun.

I suppose some time would need to be spent considering this information, because the Philocalian Calendar (a.k.a. the Chronographer of 354) is the earliest known record of Christ's date of birth being specified as the 25th of December. And it would be worth wondering, academically speaking, if the reference to N·INVICTI·CM·XXX is speaking of Christ or Sol, seeing as how neither is mentioned in this particular context of the calendar, while Christ's birth itself is specifically noted as VIII kal. Ian. in the chronicle.

Good food for thought.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I understand that sentiment. It wouldn't be right for me to condemn Catholic practices, because I only really know "what I've heard" in that regard, some of which has been propaganda. But I'm well familiar with the Protestant thinking in reaction against either real or perceived Catholic practices and dogma.

If it was all about legalistic obligation, I'd be right there with you. It has taken a bit of openness on my part to understand that the purpose of the liturgical year (in Orthodoxy) isn't to enforce a bunch of obligatory requirements (God forbid!) but rather as a means to commemorate, and to remember (but in an active sense) so many important events in Christian history.

I'm outside the Church right now, about to go in because we are having a Divine Liturgy tonight, to commemorate St. Nicholas. I'm not obligated to be here, but I'm thankful for an opportunity to gather with my Church family, worship God, receive Holy Communion, and it's a good time to remember the good example set by St. Nicholas, Bishop of Myra.

But as legalist obligations, I wouldn't appreciate it. I've also learned that legalistic expectations have the result of burdening the Body of Christ, pushing them further from God, not drawing them closer. But thankfully, this is not how we approach it. But vigilance in all things is necessary, because man is prone to all sorts of missteps, and creating legalistic requirements for the sake of somehow pleasing himself to have those hoops to jump through is a mistake we can make all too frequently.

God be with you.

I agree with you. Some people think Holy Days of Obligation are meant to force people to submit, as is the requirement to attend Mass, or Divine Liturgy, every Sunday. I take it to mean that the door is open for us to worship.
The obligations are 'legalistic' by nature, as is the speed limit. But if you realize it's there for your benefit, it comes from inside, not from outside.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I know this year I'm getting the grand kids some things I normally wouldn't. The two youngest I'm getting bunk beds, that sort of thing. I'm a little like Charlie Brown, I think Christmas is too commercialized. On the other hand I'm getting a lot of over time at work so I suppose there's a whole cost and benefit way of looking at this.

Same here. Too much commercialization. I bought gifts for all my relatives and friends, but they're small, and thoughtful. I don't kowtow to Black Friday, etc. If I need something and it coincides with Black Friday (one year I got a cell phone for $159.) fine, but I won't rush out at 5 am on the Friday after Thanksgiving. My only point is it's Christ's birthday, we should honor Him, not us.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Same here. Too much commercialization. I bought gifts for all my relatives and friends, but they're small, and thoughtful. I don't kowtow to Black Friday, etc. If I need something and it coincides with Black Friday (one year I got a cell phone for $159.) fine, but I won't rush out at 5 am on the Friday after Thanksgiving. My only point is it's Christ's birthday, we should honor Him, not us.

Even worse things that are now only available on Thanksgiviving Day. Families can't even spend that time together if someone thinks they must rush out to shop.

I'm getting disgusted with the whole thing. I wish we as a nation had the discipline to boycott Black Friday, but the sad videoes shared of people actually hurting each other to buy things is a sickening testament to how far we are falling.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Even worse things that are now only available on Thanksgiviving Day. Families can't even spend that time together if someone thinks they must rush out to shop.

I'm getting disgusted with the whole thing. I wish we as a nation had the discipline to boycott Black Friday, but the sad videoes shared of people actually hurting each other to buy things is a sickening testament to how far we are falling.

I must admit that my wife and I went out for our Thanksgiving dinner, but I would not partake of holiday shopping on Thanksgiving or Friday.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I must admit that my wife and I went out for our Thanksgiving dinner, but I would not partake of holiday shopping on Thanksgiving or Friday.

I've never gone out for Thanksgiving Dinner, but IMO the decision not to cook in itself doesn't take away from anything (except the stash of leftovers, lol).

But it is the specific abandoning of a major family gathering for the express purpose of shopping for material goods that I find objectionable.

In my case it was offset a bit these past two years by starting Thanksgiving early in the morning. Both years were spent with my daughter and her fiancée. We cooked all day, spending time together, and ate dinner. Last year I went with my daughter in her trooping through the stores, so I got a couple of gifts bought and spent a few extra hours with her. (I also waited in the line that wrapped around the store for her while she made quick side trips to look at other things.) So it's not as bad as it could have been. We had quite a few hours together. But if you show up at noon, eat a late lunch, then rush out to be st the stores that open at around 4 with their "deals" then Thanksgiving is reduced to nothing more than a big meal shared.

It makes me sad. Our family when I was growing up gathered in the morning, spent all day together - whether it was the women cooking last-minute stuff, adults chatting and catching up, children rushing in and out playing with cousins. We would eat a late lunch usually, then more socializing and family time, tasting of favorite goodies, until late - many of us staying over at my Grandparents' since it was outside the city.

So different today if the agenda is to be in the stores and ready to snatch up those limited goods within the timeline. I'm sorry, but I do find that disgusting.

But that has nothing to do with deciding to eat out. Forgive me if I made you feel that way. If we didn't have at least 4 people eating dinner, I'd probably consider going out too. Though I have cooked for 3 a time or two. The one year I was alone I actually showed up at a church that invited the public. They didn't have many takers, but I enjoyed the fellowship and stayed to help clean up and play games after and formed some friendships.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've never gone out for Thanksgiving Dinner, but IMO the decision not to cook in itself doesn't take away from anything (except the stash of leftovers, lol).

But it is the specific abandoning of a major family gathering for the express purpose of shopping for material goods that I find objectionable.

In my case it was offset a bit these past two years by starting Thanksgiving early in the morning. Both years were spent with my daughter and her fiancée. We cooked all day, spending time together, and ate dinner. Last year I went with my daughter in her trooping through the stores, so I got a couple of gifts bought and spent a few extra hours with her. (I also waited in the line that wrapped around the store for her while she made quick side trips to look at other things.) So it's not as bad as it could have been. We had quite a few hours together. But if you show up at noon, eat a late lunch, then rush out to be st the stores that open at around 4 with their "deals" then Thanksgiving is reduced to nothing more than a big meal shared.

It makes me sad. Our family when I was growing up gathered in the morning, spent all day together - whether it was the women cooking last-minute stuff, adults chatting and catching up, children rushing in and out playing with cousins. We would eat a late lunch usually, then more socializing and family time, tasting of favorite goodies, until late - many of us staying over at my Grandparents' since it was outside the city.

So different today if the agenda is to be in the stores and ready to snatch up those limited goods within the timeline. I'm sorry, but I do find that disgusting.

But that has nothing to do with deciding to eat out. Forgive me if I made you feel that way. If we didn't have at least 4 people eating dinner, I'd probably consider going out too. Though I have cooked for 3 a time or two. The one year I was alone I actually showed up at a church that invited the public. They didn't have many takers, but I enjoyed the fellowship and stayed to help clean up and play games after and formed some friendships.

For the last several years, Thanksgiving has been my wife and I. 1 daughter in Texas, two others who aren't on speaking terms with my wife, so there's no family there. I usually cook something special that day, but I'm recovering from surgery, so my wife gave me a break. I hate to tell you we went to Mass and then to Panda Express, lol, for lunch. We had noted that they were closed in the morning to give people a break. But we weren't even the first ones there.
The last time we went to Black Friday was the first year when my BIL was here from the Philippines. We were in Orange County, CA, and woke up at 3:00 am to all drive to the area near Magic Mountain, a good hour drive. We shopped, but didn't buy, and then went for breakfast.
In the old days, we went to church, then ate as a family. Even now, my mother, who's across the country, has Thanksgiving with her sister and some relatives who live nearby. We would all eat, then fall asleep on the sofa watching football and the first Christmas specials.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I've never gone out for Thanksgiving Dinner, but IMO the decision not to cook in itself doesn't take away from anything (except the stash of leftovers, lol).

But it is the specific abandoning of a major family gathering for the express purpose of shopping for material goods that I find objectionable.

In my case it was offset a bit these past two years by starting Thanksgiving early in the morning. Both years were spent with my daughter and her fiancée. We cooked all day, spending time together, and ate dinner. Last year I went with my daughter in her trooping through the stores, so I got a couple of gifts bought and spent a few extra hours with her. (I also waited in the line that wrapped around the store for her while she made quick side trips to look at other things.) So it's not as bad as it could have been. We had quite a few hours together. But if you show up at noon, eat a late lunch, then rush out to be st the stores that open at around 4 with their "deals" then Thanksgiving is reduced to nothing more than a big meal shared.

It makes me sad. Our family when I was growing up gathered in the morning, spent all day together - whether it was the women cooking last-minute stuff, adults chatting and catching up, children rushing in and out playing with cousins. We would eat a late lunch usually, then more socializing and family time, tasting of favorite goodies, until late - many of us staying over at my Grandparents' since it was outside the city.

So different today if the agenda is to be in the stores and ready to snatch up those limited goods within the timeline. I'm sorry, but I do find that disgusting.

But that has nothing to do with deciding to eat out. Forgive me if I made you feel that way. If we didn't have at least 4 people eating dinner, I'd probably consider going out too. Though I have cooked for 3 a time or two. The one year I was alone I actually showed up at a church that invited the public. They didn't have many takers, but I enjoyed the fellowship and stayed to help clean up and play games after and formed some friendships.

On the other hand, if you recognize what Cardinal John Henry Neumann said, Thanksgiving is what the Eucharist is all about, so celebrating by attending Mass (Divine Liturgy) is a propos. And actually, while many believe Thanksgiving was to thank the Indians for helping the Pilgrims get through the winter, it's not. It's for thanking God for His blessings.

 

[~Anastasia~]

(Sorry just realized where I was posting - I'm trying to catch up. Since the topic is still going, I apologize and don't want to post any more off topic.)

Thanks for sharing, Jesse. God be with you and yours. I pray things are better in years to come.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think the COGIC churches, the big Pentecostal denomination, have something reminiscent of the ancient Hebrew, Holy Convocation, they even call it that. These things are all perfectly fine by me, I remember my Aunt trying to explain the Rosary to me. Apparently it is representative of the various events of the New Testament. Passover, it should be noted was reminiscent of the Exodus, Tabernacles of the wilderness wanderings etc. As people of faith we identify with long and time tested traditions that remind us of redemptive history past, present and even casting some light on the future. My feeling is that if you can partake of the Lord's Supper without remembering how much our sin cost him you might as well be eating potato chips. In all these things the forms are not as important as the substance found in Christ. If it helps you draw closer to God and remember the landmarks of redemption it can be a profoundly important practice. But just going through the motions yields little if we are just dutifully following some prescribed liturgy. It just depends.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I don't know what to say. My early liturgical experiences came during Great Lent, Holy Week, and Pascha. It was like actually being transported to the experience of Christ's triumphal entry, mystical supper, prayer in the garden, betrayal, trial, crucifixion, burial, and finally His glorious resurrection. The service of Pascha was packed with visitors. The man next to me told me he was Methodist but couldn't miss this service. Hundreds of people (and we are a small Church) shouting joyfully when the light had burst forth.

I can't imagine it as simply "going through the motions" though I'm sure some folks possibly do. And if they did, that could be profoundly damaging.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't know what to say. My early liturgical experiences came during Great Lent, Holy Week, and Pascha. It was like actually being transported to the experience of Christ's triumphal entry, mystical supper, prayer in the garden, betrayal, trial, crucifixion, burial, and finally His glorious resurrection. The service of Pascha was packed with visitors. The man next to me told me he was Methodist but couldn't miss this service. Hundreds of people (and we are a small Church) shouting joyfully when the light had burst forth.

I can't imagine it as simply "going through the motions" though I'm sure some folks possibly do. And if they did, that could be profoundly damaging.

Well I don't doubt that, I wasn't meaning to be critical, just saying that these ceremonies represent monumental events in redemptive history. I have been to a lot of Baptist churches and never really liked how they did the Lord's Supper or baptism. That's more or less what I was thinking, really don't have a lot of experience with Orthodox and Catholic services.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well I don't doubt that, I wasn't meaning to be critical, just saying that these ceremonies represent monumental events in redemptive history. I have been to a lot of Baptist churches and never really liked how they did the Lord's Supper or baptism. That's more or less what I was thinking, really don't have a lot of experience with Orthodox and Catholic services.

Ah ok.

Well my experience is somewhat limited, despite having been Baptist for many years. What i mean is that it wasn't all that frequent an occurrence. But what I can say is that they always (that I saw) took baptism and communion seriously, even though they didn't consider them sacramental. I probably started out with a very high opinion of communion for a Baptist just because of the seriousness and reverence which my varied local churches always used. In fact, that's probably why it was so rare. Most of them wouldn't offer it during regular services, in case a visitor might be present. They would usually schedule it for Sunday night, maybe an hour before the regular service, a few times a year - just to essentially keep it "closed" (now that I think if it) though Baptist theology afaik invites all baptized Christians to receive.

I have run into shocking treatments of baptism and communion, but nearly always in non-denominational churches of at least a moderately Pentecostal bent. Once in a Vineyard (which really saddened me) and once in (I think) Calvary Chapel. But I suppose being that no real significance is attached to it in some places, it can happen. Or rather, since it us thought to be something like a personal profession, it becomes about the human person, so perhaps they can't see any sacrilege there. I don't know. I want to not hold it against anyone, but the truth is, it shocked me.

Forgive me. The issue here isn't to point fingers, is it? I'm not posting well - pretty sleep deprived these days.

But I agree with you. And for me, I really agree. Any kind of just going through the motions is spiritually deadening, and potentially dangerous.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah ok.

Well my experience is somewhat limited, despite having been Baptist for many years. What i mean is that it wasn't all that frequent an occurrence. But what I can say is that they always (that I saw) took baptism and communion seriously, even though they didn't consider them sacramental. I probably started out with a very high opinion of communion for a Baptist just because of the seriousness and reverence which my varied local churches always used. In fact, that's probably why it was so rare. Most of them wouldn't offer it during regular services, in case a visitor might be present. They would usually schedule it for Sunday night, maybe an hour before the regular service, a few times a year - just to essentially keep it "closed" (now that I think if it) though Baptist theology afaik invites all baptized Christians to receive.

I have run into shocking treatments of baptism and communion, but nearly always in non-denominational churches of at least a moderately Pentecostal bent. Once in a Vineyard (which really saddened me) and once in (I think) Calvary Chapel. But I suppose being that no real significance is attached to it in some places, it can happen. Or rather, since it us thought to be something like a personal profession, it becomes about the human person, so perhaps they can't see any sacrilege there. I don't know. I want to not hold it against anyone, but the truth is, it shocked me.

Forgive me. The issue here isn't to point fingers, is it? I'm not posting well - pretty sleep deprived these days.

But I agree with you. And for me, I really agree. Any kind of just going through the motions is spiritually deadening, and potentially dangerous.

I don't really know what the approach to baptism is for a lot of people but I remember I wanted to be baptized for a year after becoming a Christian. I was in the Navy and it's along story but it didn't happen till I left the service. I went into a Church of Christ, spent some weeks maybe months, until it came up talking to the Pastor. I'll never forget how important that was to be and these were some pretty dignified worshipers. I've been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the oneness Pentecostals thought it should be in Jesus name so a went along with it. I was baptized a Catholic as an infant and I was even circumcised, for health reasons. What really matters to me is the profession of faith, the reason it matters is because I was called to faith, the ceremony was symbolic but an important moment for me in a profoundly personal way.

I'll never forget one Lord's Supper at a chapel, one of the visiting chaplains turned to the congregation and told us if your not sure of your commitment you should not participate in this. I hadn't been a Christian very long and I was seriously not going to partake, but finally I did. I still remember how that felt and it's not just that I for a moment actually worried about God holding me accountable. It was the fact that I took that seriously, it has stuck with me.

I'm fine with remembering the birth of Christ on Christmas, it's a wonderful thing. I just have a deep concern that sometimes we take the things of God too lightly, and how we ceremonialize things matter.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[~Anastasia~]

I don't really know what the approach to baptism is for a lot of people but I remember I wanted to be baptized for a year after becoming a Christian. I was in the Navy and it's along story but it didn't happen till I left the service. I went into a Church of Christ, spent some weeks maybe months, until it came up talking to the Pastor. I'll never forget how important that was to be and these were some pretty dignified worshipers. I've been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the oneness Pentecostals thought it should be in Jesus name so a went along with it. I was baptized a Catholic as an infant and I was even circumcised, for health reasons. What really matters to me is the profession of faith, the reason it matters is because I was called to faith, the ceremony was symbolic but an important moment for me in a profoundly personal way.

I'll never forget one Lord's Supper at a chapel, one of the visiting chaplains turned to the congregation and told us if your not sure of your commitment you should not participate in this. I hadn't been a Christian very long and I was seriously not going to partake, but finally I did. I still remember how that felt and it's not just that I for a moment actually worried about God holding me accountable. It was the fact that I took that seriously, it has stuck with me.

I'm fine with remembering the birth of Christ on Christmas, it's a wonderful thing. I just have a deep concern that sometimes we take the things of God too lightly, and how we ceremonialize things matter.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I think I understand better where you're going now in context. Or maybe I'm filling in blanks.

But honestly the commercialization of Christmas (to me) seems to majorly risk making light of what shouldn't be. Though really, the whole idea of Christmas (as in decorations, gifts, celebrations) is perhaps not well connected to the Nativity of Christ in many people's minds.

I rather wish they had just made up a special day and made a big deal of it, rather than co-opting Christmas.

There's the flip side for you. The charge is often that Christmas is the co-opting of a pagan holiday. I believe the truth is that the Christian Christmas/Nativity has been co-opted to a commercial holiday.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think I understand better where you're going now in context. Or maybe I'm filling in blanks.

But honestly the commercialization of Christmas (to me) seems to majorly risk making light of what shouldn't be. Though really, the whole idea of Christmas (as in decorations, gifts, celebrations) is perhaps not well connected to the Nativity of Christ in many people's minds.

I rather wish they had just made up a special day and made a big deal of it, rather than co-opting Christmas.

There's the flip side for you. The charge is often that Christmas is the co-opting of a pagan holiday. I believe the truth is that the Christian Christmas/Nativity has been co-opted to a commercial holiday.

I think it's been natural for certain seasons to inspire certain holidays, it's not that big of a deal. I just would prefer for Christmas to be more about Christ and less about getting presents, just saying. I actually like the fact that the church made it about the birth of Christ and I can see how this was something they worked on to compete with pagan influences.

 

[Radagast]

Though really, the whole idea of Christmas (as in decorations, gifts, celebrations) is perhaps not well connected to the Nativity of Christ in many people's minds.

We Christians celebrate Christmas. We need not follow the World's directions about how.

I rather wish they had just made up a special day and made a big deal of it, rather than co-opting Christmas.

Exactly what C. S. Lewis says!

 

[~Anastasia~]

We Christians celebrate Christmas. We need not follow the World's directions about how.

Agreed, yes. Especially since Christians have done it a certain way for many centuries before the other ideas ever got introduced.

Exactly what C. S. Lewis says!

Ha! Then I consider myself in extremely good company! (Though not worthy of the intellect of the man - really admire him!)