Do you believe Christmas is pagan?

JackRT · Sep 29, 2018

ViaCrucis said:
You must be a lot of fun at parties.

-CryptoLutheran

This entire conversation reminds me of:

A funny thing overheard on the way to the forum

What’s this empire coming to? Now they want us to stop greeting people with "Io Saturnalia!? "We have all these different cultures in Rome" they tell us, "We shouldn’t offend anyone" they tell us, "We’ve got to be inclusive".

We’ve got the barbarians from the north with their tree decorations and their fire rituals. And the weirdos from Gaul, cutting mistletoe with a golden sickle. And the Mithraists, the Zoroastrians, the Isis cults, and, of course, those characters who hang out in the catacombs. "Hail, Winter!" we’re supposed to say. I ask you, what next: we lose the feast? We stop the Solstice parties? No more honoring Ops, goddess of abundance?

I was buying some greenery down by the Forum the other day, and there’s old Macrobius with some Visigoth chick, and she goes, "Gut Jule." And I go, "Hey! In this country, we say, 'Io, Saturnalia' Maybe you should go back to where you came from? "Then Macrobius goes, "She can’t, she’s a slave." Whatever. At this time of year, the Visigoths sacrifice a pig and burn a special log that they dance around, instead of acting like normal people and going to the temple of Saturn.

I swear, I was at this party over at Septima Commodia’s house the other day. She always has a Saturnalia party. Anyway, she decorated the place with prickly green leaves. "It’s holly" she said, "The latest fashion from Brittania. They all do it in Londinium." It gets worse.

She had this statue of some goddess from Ultima Thule or somewhere, name of Frigga, sitting right there on the dining room mensa. I mean, this is darned near blasphemous. I’d be scared about what the lares and penates would do if I put that thing in my house. But Septima Commodia just said, "Oh get over it! We’re cosmopolitan around here." Cosmopolitan. That’s what they call it. Well by Jupiter, I live in Latium. I’m a Roman. And this empire was founded on the principle that the gods, our gods, must be honored at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. None of this foreign heretical nonsense or these strange customs from Germania or Hibernia or Palestine. I say, "Io, Saturnalia!" and if you don’t like it, you can leave.

Thanks to "Witch" from wondercafe.ca

truefiction1 · Sep 29, 2018

ViaCrucis said:
Well, then in that case the true answer is pretty simple. Nimrod is a figure who is mentioned a handful of times in the Bible, and is otherwise irrelevant in the history of anything.

The claim that Nimrod was married to the legendary queen Semiramis of Assyria is pure fiction. And an even more ludicrous fiction is that their child was Tammuz. Tammuz was an Akkadian deity, derived from the Summerian Damu-zid. His parents were the god Enki and the goddess Duttur.

This Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz thing that you find on the internet a make-believe fiction that was invented by Alexander Hislop. His sources included...nothing. Nothing at all. He made it up. Pulled straight out of his hindquarters without any ancient sources of any kind whatsoever.

-CryptoLutheran

Who needs historical validation? Itchy ears are far more fun.

Barney2.0 · Sep 29, 2018

JackRT said:
When the Birth Narrative is examined objectively and in detail one is left with some real questions as to just how historically accurate it is. The earliest New Testament writer, Paul, makes scant reference to the birth of Jesus except to say that it was "according to the flesh" which I would read to mean 'perfectly natural --- nothing special'. About 15 years later the next writer, Mark, makes no mention of the birth at all and begins his narrative with the baptitsm of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke, writing some 10 to 15 years after Mark, treat the birth in some detail but contradict each other considerably. The first suggestion of the “virgin birth” is in Matthew and that seems to be based on a misinterpretation of a passage in Isaiah. Finally John, writing about AD 95, must have been aware of the birth stories of Matthew and Luke but he, like Mark, includes no Birth Narrative.

At the moment I will focus on the question 'when did the birth of Jesus take place?' In Matt 2:1 he says "in the days of Herod the king". We know from secular sources that Herod (the Great) died in 4 BC. This would suggest that Jesus was born in the last few years of Herod's reign perhaps between 7 and 4 BC. When we turn to Luke we are immediately perplexed. In Luke 2:1-3 he says that it was during a world-wide census "when Quirinius was governor of Syria". We know that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth in Galilee. We also know that in AD 6 Galilee was attached to Syria and that Quirinius immediately called a census. Already we have a discrepancy of at least 9 years (there is no year '0').

More needs to be said about the census. There is no record of a comprehensive census of the entire (Roman) world. In those days a census was much different than those of today. In Italy periodic censuses were ordered to enroll all men of military age but this happened only in Italy. Elsewhere in the Empire a census had a quite different purpose --- it was to enroll the value of land and/or business assets for the purpose of taxation. Such a census did not require that people return to their ancient home town. Can you just imagine the massive dislocation that would entail? The Romans were a very practical people and the census was not focused on people at all. The census dealt with land and business in place. In the colonies the Romans employed the notorious system of tax farming. This system resulted in very onerous tax burdens.

The Jews of Galilee knew this well and so when Quirinius ordered his census they rose in revolt under the leadership of Rabbi Judas of Galilee. Incidentally Judas was regarded as a messiah. His revolt met with some initial success but a Roman Army dispatched from Syria defeated them . Rabbi Judas with about 2000 of his rebels were captured and they were crucified en masse at Sephoris (just an easy walk from Nazareth). If Luke was correct in his dating then Jesus would have just been born. On the other hand if Matthew was correct Jesus would have been about ten and could possibly have witnessed some of the events surrounding the revolt.

It is hardly necessary to point out that these two Birth Narratives not only contradict each other but they also contradict the historical record.

P.S. If we are to believe the birth narrative that the shepherds were "with their flocks in the fields by night" then this enables us to place the birth within a few weeks. Shepherds corraled their sheep at night. The corrals were simply low walls of rough fieldstone. The gate was just a gap in the wall across which the shepherd would lay his bedroll. This was not done in lambing season in order to prevent newborn lambs from being trampled and injured in the crowded corral. This would put the birth in the early spring in late March or early April.

Actually there were no large indoor spaces for shepherds to keep their flocks, so shepherds just kept them outdoors. Even in Jerusalem winter nights aren’t actually that cold.

AFrazier · Sep 29, 2018

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
The keeping of a birthday anniversary is a Pagan custom, not a Godly practice. It was only ever kept by Pagans.

The bible says what we are to do in remembrance of him, celebrating the anniversary of his birth is not mentioned or commanded(as it is a Pagan/ungodly custom).

A person using a toliet does not affect his spiritual well being, keeping ungodly practices does.

Demonstrate the ungodliness of celebrating a birthday.

AFrazier · Sep 29, 2018

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
The keeping of a birthday anniversary is a Pagan custom, not a Godly practice. It was only ever kept by Pagans.

The bible says what we are to do in remembrance of him, celebrating the anniversary of his birth is not mentioned or commanded(as it is a Pagan/ungodly custom).

A person using a toliet does not affect his spiritual well being, keeping ungodly practices does.

You also missed my point by a mile. As you say, "celebrating the anniversary of his birth is not mentioned or commanded," but the lack of mention doesn't make it bad. It just makes it unmentioned. We were never commanded not to enjoy celebrating the birthday of a loved one.

JackRT · Sep 29, 2018

deleted

Erik Nelson · Sep 29, 2018

HTacianas said:
By way of analogy, during the invasion of Iraq, after the Iraqi army had been defeated and Saddam Hussein went into hiding, General Tommy Franks and some of his associates sat in Saddam's palace, on his sofa, and smoked cigars. It was one of those gratuitous symbols of victory over an enemy. Several pictures were taken of it.

Should someone look at one of those pictures, would they mistake Tommy Franks for Saddam Hussein? After all, who else would sit on the sofa in the palace smoking a cigar other than Saddam Hussein?

Christmas is the same. If you walk up to ten people on the street and ask them what Christmas is there is a very good chance that all ten of them will answer that it is Jesus' birthday. No one remembers any of the myriad pagan festivals of the winter solstice. Christmas is "captured territory".

The writer to the Corinthians at 1 Corinthians 15:25 said:

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet

Celebrate Christmas. It is the birth of Jesus. Ask anybody.

Doesn't Acts 15 show that the earliest Church tried to accommodate gentile traditions & customs to the maximum degree? No barriers were erected against gentile entry into the Church, gentile foodways & folkways & cultural customs were accepted unless they violated core commandments?

---

Church Tradition dates John's birth to June. If so, then Mary rushed to visit Elizabeth's country home in March, and stayed there until June. That makes a lot of sense...

Elizabeth required increasing care, in her third trimester
March/April + May/June = Passover + Pentecost (2 major mandatory pilgrimage festivals)
After Pentecost (and the birth of John), Mary would have then gone home, as Luke states... because the next pilgrimage festival wouldn't have been until Sept/Oct, months off

Few other sequences of events could so easily account for Luke 1. Church Tradition in no way antagonizes Scripture, and if you didn't "know better, that Church Tradition just had to be wrong" (so to speak)... you would have no reason to ever doubt it.

If some other sequence were to turn out to be true, John being born about Sept./Oct. (Feast of Tabernacles = John grew up in the wilderness Luke 1:80) would make some sense. Mary would have visited her throughout the summer, after Pentecost up until the Feast of Tabernacles... then gone home for the fall + winter when there were no more pilgrimage festivals for half a year. Jesus would have been born about Passover the following spring, an auspicious day, and most compatible with shepherds' flocks in the fields... as well as "no room at the inn" because so many Jews were flocking to Jerusalem for the Passover festival.

The Jewish Talmud appears to date the Priestly order of Abijah's service in the temple to Dec + June (twice a year), such that a December conception of John and September birth would imply a June conception and March birth of Jesus (also compatible with Joseph taking Mary towards Jerusalem when nine months pregnant... it was a mandatory feast, and they took a slight detour to satisfy the census on the way also)

When Was Jesus Born? | First Coming | Lamb and Lion Ministries

aiki · Sep 29, 2018

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
It was and is a Pagan Custom kept by Pagans, unless you can show a righteous man in the bible keeping this custom then the only example we have is that it was kept by the ungodly.

Simply repeating yourself doesn't rebut the points I've made. Again, it is an unwarranted assumption to say that, because only the birthday celebrations of unsaved people are mentioned in Scripture, only the unsaved, pagan people of Bible times were celebrating birthdays. This just doesn't follow logically from the facts. All we know, really, from Scripture is that two pagan people had birthday celebrations. Using your logic, we should assume that only these two ever had birthdays. The Bible doesn't say anyone else - pagan or not - had a birthday party so, then, using your logic, only Pharoah and Herod had birthday parties, right? But this isn't how you're contending for your point of view. You are recognizing that if Pharoah and Herod had birthday parties, then others did, too. But then you are artificially restricting this custom - without warrant - only to pagans. And so, you're thinking in this matter is highly - but conveniently - inconsistent and anchored only to assumptions.

Also, you haven't a single positive instance in the Bible where birthdays are explicitly condemned as "pagan" and forbidden to Christians. Not one. Yet, you want to erect a rule for all Christians denying them any and all such celebrations. This is legalism of the sort Jesus condemned in the Pharisees.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
If it were of God it would have been spoken of/given by commandment that we keep this tradition.

Again, this is a non sequitur. I guess you aren't able to understand what a non sequitur is but this doesn't make you any less guilty of non sequitur reasoning. We keep many traditions for which there is no explicit divine command. How does it follow that because God has not commanded something it is therefore forbidden? As has been pointed out, there are a great many things God has not commanded that we cannot avoid doing every day. Blinking, for example, or wearing pants, or driving my car to work. Surely you don't think these things are forbidden because God never commanded any of them.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
Your customs are vain, rooted in ungodliness. You do exactly as the Lord told us not to when he said not to learn the ways of the Heathen.

This is silly. The passage you cited from Jeremiah 10 mentions "cutting trees out of the forest." Is logging a pagan ritual, then? Are we to forego any and all wood products that are the result of the pagan practice of "cutting trees out of the forest"? I think not. According to Jeremiah, pagans also used nails and hammer. These must be pagan tools, ungodly tools, then, that all good Christians should avoid using, right? Apparently, pagans wore blue clothing and used plates, too. Clearly, then, according to your logic, no Christian should use plates or wear blue clothing because pagans once did. Can you see, yet, the problem with this kind of thinking? I certainly do.

straykat · Sep 29, 2018

lol @ at arguing about keeping birthdays in general now. These were meant to be markers in the ancient world. They didn't have digital assistants, you know. They were highly adept at keeping track of all seasons through manual methods. And the Jews definitely kept track. How do you think they knew when a boy was old enough to read the Torah in public (which became the Bar Mitzvah in later centuries)? Just some modern innovation of the "Synagogue of Satan", that Jews merely pulled out of their hats in later times? Or how do you think they could keep track when a daughter was of "marriagable age" and presented her to suitors?

fat wee robin · Sep 29, 2018

MMDave3 said:
A friend of mine believes it is. She is part of the "Living Church of God", which I admittedly am not very familiar with. She doesn't celebrate it at all.

I am quite certain many aspects of modern Christmas are taken from pagan and other non-Christian sources. And I'm ok with that. There are no Christmas trees in the Bible. Or giving of gifts. Or Santa. But that doesn't change what the day is about - celebrating the birth of Christ, regardless of what day it actually happened on. Also, being with family and/or friends.

Agreed ,that Jesus was born, and we are celebrating this great festival .There are so many filled with hatred of others ,that it blocks their view to celebrating the Lord's arrival on earth .

fat wee robin · Sep 29, 2018

TCassidy said:
You obviously didn't read my post. Here it is again with the pertinent parts highlighted.

II. The shepherds did stay in the fields in December.

"Equally so was the belief that He (the birth of Messiah) was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, the 'tower of the flock.' This Migdal Eder was not the watch-tower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah leads to the conclusion that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for the temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life which rendered strict legal observance unlikely, if not impossible. The same Mishnic passage also leads us to infer that these flocks lay out all the year round, since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before the Passover--that is in the month of February when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest." Edersheim.

Jesus was most likely born on the 25 th December 7AD as the sky was celebrating some very great celestial event .

fat wee robin · Sep 29, 2018

Dave-W said:
Indeed. The Romans kept good census and tax records; but those were destroyed when Vesuvius blew and wiped out Pompeii in 79 ad.

Perhaps God did not want us to know the exact date, lest we idolize it.

I like that ,"in case we idolise it " .

fat wee robin · Sep 29, 2018

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
They preached the fullness of the doctrine, how we live as Christians should be based on the words of God and the traditions of God. Anything concerning our spirit and living in the spirit should be founded on God's eternal word, not based on the traditions of men.

Your personal interpretation , I think would be more accurate .

ViaCrucis · Sep 29, 2018

Natsumi Lam said:
Wouldn't this be considered a personal attack? Kinda harsh dont ya think. I may or may not agree with with him but i think this is going a bit too far IMHO.

It's nothing personal against him; but the preaching of the word means the preaching of the precious and holy Gospel: that God in His great love so loved the world that He sent His only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who by His life, death, and resurrection has defeated sin, death, hell, and the devil; having reconciled us to God by making peace, has restored human nature, in Whom we have forgiveness of sin, adoption as children, and life everlasting.

Going to a wedding to preach at people to condemn them for celebrating the coming together of husband and wife in sacred matrimony--that's not preaching the word.

The Apostolic preaching--the kerygma--is the proclamation of the good news of what God has done for us, and indeed, for the whole world in and through Jesus Christ our Lord.

-CryptoLutheran

straykat · Sep 29, 2018

ViaCrucis said:
Going to a wedding to preach at people to condemn them for celebrating the coming together of husband and wife in sacred matrimony--that's not preaching the word.

The Apostolic preaching--the kerygma--is the proclamation of the good news of what God has done for us, and indeed, for the whole world.

-CryptoLutheran

That's an antisocial person...and possibly a psychopath who needs to be ignored. Nothing more.

Marriage is one of the first sacred things God enacted on Earth. One he enjoys so much that he uses it to describe himself with the Church, as his bride.

98cwitr · Sep 29, 2018

Albion said:
Talk about a "quick look at history" being sufficient for anyone to know what he needs to know before making a decision about this controversy should instantly set off warning signs.

There is no controversy. The timing of Christmas is blatantly pagan, as well as Easter. It's the mideviel church's attempts at assimilating pagans into Christendom. There's no real debate on this. According to the Bible, Christ was likely born in early spring, but what does it really matter? He was born, lived, died, and lived again, and was lifted to heaven. He died for our sins and was and is God among us, and that's what matters. Christmas is quite trivial imo.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Sep 29, 2018

Dorothy Mae said:
Can you show me where one righteous man celebrates getting a job finally? How about a righteous man celebrating his wife getting pregnant? (not yet the successful birth) Ever read about a righteous man celebrating retiring? being married 40 years? Getting a raise? Buying a house? Getting a PhD or Bachelors?

Guess all of these need to be classified as pagan cause pagans do this. What a sad celebrationless life you recommend!!

I can show where the bible says sinners kept a Pagan tradition, that is enough. As to the other things if neither are shown to do it then it means none of those things affect your spiritual well being.

A true Christian rejoices in the Lord daily with an unspeakable Joy, rejoicing and glorifying him by each passing second praising his name(1 Thess 5:16-17; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:4; Romans 12:12; 1 Peter 1:8-9; 2 Cor 12:10; 1 Timothy 6:6; Galatians 5:22-23). So it is sad only a person chooses to limit that unspeakable joy to a handful of Days a year, and not only that but this same person attaches ungodly practices to these days doing that which is abhorrent to the Lord's eyes. That is what is sad sister.

straykat · Sep 29, 2018

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:
I can show where the bible says sinners kept a Pagan tradition, that is enough. As to the other things if neither are shown to do it then it means none of those things affect your spiritual well being.

A true Christian rejoices in the Lord daily with an unspeakable Joy, rejoicing and glorifying him by each passing second praising his name(1 Thess 5:16-17; Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:4; Romans 12:12; 1 Peter 1:8-9; 2 Cor 12:10; 1 Timothy 6:6; Galatians 5:22-23). So it is sad only a person chooses to limit that unspeakable joy to a handful of Days a year, and not only that but this same person attaches ungodly practices to these days doing that which is abhorrent to the Lord's eyes. That is what is sad sister.

Who said it was just a "handful"? The old churches had a holiday for almost every day of the year. Still do. It was also a handy way of keeping time, besides the cycle of farming and harvests. They didn't walk around with Rolexes, you know.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Sep 29, 2018

Dorothy Mae said:
Probably not much of a problem once word gets around. To go at all is being hypocritical.

Do you refuse being paid the Christmas holiday if you don’t work? Hypocritical if you take holiday pay for a pagan holiday (in your eyes.) You should offer to work all holidays you think pagan, and accept NO extra pagan pay. I’ve never yet met a Christmas naysayer who really believed their position enough to put their money where their mouth is. They preach “no christmas“ but happily take that pagan holiday bonus. Hypocritical!!

Exactly, once a person knows up front with no deceit that you will not abide someone calling ungodliness Good they usually stay away from that person. Nobody wants to hear how they are wrong, they usually get angry and call you names.

I do refuse such pay, and I work almost every Holiday if asked or if I need the money.

StephenDiscipleofYHWH · Sep 29, 2018

straykat said:
That's an antisocial person...and possibly a psychopath who needs to be ignored. Nothing more.

Marriage is one of the first sacred things God enacted on Earth. One he enjoys so much that he uses it to describe himself with the Church, as his bride.

I agree, and to add ungodliness to Godliness is a sin.

Do you believe Christmas is pagan?

Well-Known Member

Fool

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Lord forgive me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads