Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Great question!
It is true the date has its pagan beginnings. however when scripture tells us not to worship Our God in the way the pagans worship their gods it is talking about detestable practices such as sacrificing your children or wedgies on the temple steps. It is not talking about honoring the birth of our Lord and savior.
Below I have quoted 3 secular(unbiased) sources that confirm the Pagan roots of Christmas- I do not believe people are spreading false information they are just trying not to be deceived or allow other Brothers and Sisters in Christ to be deceived.Fact check:
False. The Christmas tree is a germanic Christian custom of charity. Originally the ornaments were edible alms for the poor, with a few gold-colored ones to remember St. Nicholas (more on that below). Before there were trees the custom was to leave alms or gifts in untended shoes or socks (which later evolved into stockings [drying] on the hearth).
False. Christmas was never on the Winter Solstice (which is December 20-23 depending on the year), and the earlier date for it was January 6th. The date was calculated relative to Pascha/Easter and it is completely unrelated to Saturnalia.
False. "Santa Claus" is a Germanic folk depiction of St. Nicholas of Myra, a Christian Bishop who was present at the Council of Nicea, known for his acts of Christian charity and gift giving. He was a real person. We have his remains. Here is what he looked like based on a forensic reconstruction of his skull:
Part of his story was that he paid the dowries of poor young women so that they could marry. In some depictions the gold coins of the dowries were replaced with (or just misinterpreted as) gold balls – and that's where Christmas ornaments, especially Christmas tree ornaments, originate from: An act of Christian charity.
False. Christmas was celebrated way before the schism that made the Catholic and Orthodox churches and eventually fractured Christianity into its modern denominations. The Church celebrated Christmas. It was and is a Christian practice.
Please do not spread false information.
Eaxactly. Are we only allowed to celebrate the birth of our Lord and savior on any day other than December 25th? Are we giving up and giving that day to the pagans? I don't think so. We use it that day because "what you meant for evil God meant for good." We are told in scripture not to honor our God and celebrate our God in the way the pagans do when we take over their lands. But if you read all those ways are the detestable ways to God such as orgies on the temple steps and such as sacrificing your children. It's not talking about giving Christmas presents to your loved ones. Gresham, get a grip people and relax.
With what you've cited, however: It first states that the dating of December 25 predates pagan influence (which does not help your case) and then it makes some curious claims including Mithras and other practices. Roger Beck, one of the foremost authorities on Mithraic studies, calls assertions of similarities between Christmas and Mithraism the "hoariest of facts" without any hint of proof. The rest of what you cited is actually in support of Christmas being independent from any pagan festivals with the discussion of differing dates between the East and West. The rest of the live article on Christmas needs a serious cleanup, as there are lots of claims whose "sources" don't actually link anywhere or don't actually say what's cited (more of the same sort of myths, too, like that December 25th was the solstice – it was not).
The sources you cited don't quite state what you think they do, and some have also made common mistakes.
Notice how, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, after it shows the historical precedent for December 25th by Sextus Julius Africanus, it prefaces the rest of the discussion with "One widespread explanation" not that this was actually the case. It even follows it up with "One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices."
In other words the Encyclopedia Britannica is mentioning the belief because of its prominence but doesn't endorse the connection due to problems with it.
Encyclopedia.com doesn't actually cite evidence for how it is "evident" that the early Christian Fathers were struggling for "psychological supremacy" resorting to "expropriation." (In fact that's the exact opposite of what the Encyclopedia Britanica states in its conclusion.) That raises all sorts of red flags and requires some serious evidence. None is given. No primary sources (they only cite tertiary at best). No discussion of any of the Early Church Fathers' writings. Exceptional claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Finally, Wikipedia. Wikipedia *is* admittedly biased. But that's a systemic problem.
I am sure you have a heart for Christ, I just do not think this Christmas thing is truth.The sources you cited don't quite state what you think they do, and some have also made common mistakes.
Notice how, in the Encyclopedia Britannica, after it shows the historical precedent for December 25th by Sextus Julius Africanus, it prefaces the rest of the discussion with "One widespread explanation" not that this was actually the case. It even follows it up with "One of the difficulties with this view is that it suggests a nonchalant willingness on the part of the Christian church to appropriate a pagan festival when the early church was so intent on distinguishing itself categorically from pagan beliefs and practices."
In other words the Encyclopedia Britannica is mentioning the belief because of its prominence but doesn't endorse the connection due to problems with it.
Encyclopedia.com doesn't actually cite evidence for how it is "evident" that the early Christian Fathers were struggling for "psychological supremacy" resorting to "expropriation." (In fact that's the exact opposite of what the Encyclopedia Britanica states in its conclusion.) That raises all sorts of red flags and requires some serious evidence. None is given. No primary sources (they only cite tertiary at best). No discussion of any of the Early Church Fathers' writings. Exceptional claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Finally, Wikipedia. Wikipedia *is* admittedly biased. But that's a systemic problem.
