- Jan 7, 2024
- 7,219
- 952
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ? I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.
Upvote
0
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.
Christ's
YesSo it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ?
No, he was just establishing the date in his local jurisdictionI thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.
No, he was just establishing the date in his local jurisdiction
You seem unwilling or unable to understand simple statements. There was only one Church, whether it be the Church in Ephesus or the Church in Antioch or the Church in Rome or the Church in Philippi.And for whom was he establishing the date for ? Christs Church or Constantine ?
Sure there was...the TaNaKh ;-)Honoring God is Biblical. Remember too that in early Christianity there was no Bible.
In truth, we do not know for sure exactly who or when December 25 was first given or celebrated as the birth of Jesus.So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ? I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.
I'm no Catholic or defender of Papal authority, but it would be irresponsible to not acknowledge or be educated in our history. The Nicene Creed was also made in the 4th century... are you going to protest that too? simply saying some sort of sentiment that you don't agree with papal authority or Constantine's motivations doesn't make something valid or not. This is not a critical way of engaging a subject.So it was Christ's church who first gave the date for Christmas ? I thought it was Pope Julius I in the 4th century.
Holidays evolve. Wulfstan I didn’t invent the word "Christmas"—he used an existing term in his writings. By his time, the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25 was centuries old, formalized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. The phrase "Cristes mæsse" likely evolved naturally in Old English Christian communities, combining "Crist" (Christ) and "mæsse" (Mass, from Latin "missa"). Wulfstan I’s homilies, written in the vernacular for English audiences, simply reflect its adoption by the early 11th century.The first mention we have of the word "Christmas" I am aware of comes from the 11th century (the first usage the Oxford English Dictionary lists is a homily by Wulfstan, an 11th century English bishop). This is obviously long after the holiday had been celebrated. Attempting to say it's "Catholic in origin" because of a name given centuries upon centuries after the fact is questionable. In many languages, the word for Christmas derives from the word birth, such as Spanish where the word is Navidad, ultimately coming from the Latin word Nativitas (birth). Greek is even more explicit, with the word being Χριστούγεννα (Christougenna), meaning "Christ birth".
Holidays evolve. Wulfstan I didn’t invent the word "Christmas"—he used an existing term in his writings. By his time, the celebration of Christ’s birth on December 25 was centuries old, formalized by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. The phrase "Cristes mæsse" likely evolved naturally in Old English Christian communities, combining "Crist" (Christ) and "mæsse" (Mass, from Latin "missa"). Wulfstan I’s homilies, written in the vernacular for English audiences, simply reflect its adoption by the early 11th century.
On December 25, 336 AD, during the reign of Emperor Constantine (the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity), the first recorded celebration of Christ’s Nativity took place in Rome, as noted in the Chronograph of 354, a Roman document. This date was likely chosen to align with existing Roman festivals, such as the winter solstice celebration (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, or "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun") or Saturnalia, both of which occurred around late December. By adopting this date, Church leaders could ease the transition for pagan converts while reframing the celebration around Christ. Pope Julius I (reigned 337–352 AD) is often credited with officially endorsing December 25 as the date, though the decision likely emerged from earlier traditions in the Roman Church.
But the argument that it makes it Catholic is to ignore the fact that Christmas is nevertheless not a term people used originally for the holiday, and developed later--and in only Britain. A name applied to a holiday well after its creation and in a place that does not appear to have even been its originator does not say much about the origin of the holiday.In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.
Given the effort that went in to stamping out heresies that had arisen within the Church, it would have been totally counter productive for the Church to include elements of pagan celebrations to "ease the transition" of converts from paganism. I suspect people began making this argument after uncritical acceptance of Alexander Hislops arguments, not realising that he had made up all his 'historical connections' between pagan beliefs and what he perceived to be Catholic errorsAs for the idea of the goal being to "ease the transition for pagan converts", the problem of the lack of crossover in customs of Saturnalia and Christmas at the time. People attempt to draw parallels, but they mostly fail because they either aren't things that were actually true in Saturnalia, or were only Christmas customs developed far later. For example, gift giving. It is absolutely true gift giving was a part of Saturnalia, and it is a part of Christmas... modern Christmas. But there is, as far as I am aware, no reference to it being a custom of Christmas until long after Saturnalia observation had completely ceased.
Since the church was undivided in the 4th century (with the exception of Arianism) there isn't much meaning in saying something was Catholic or not Catholic. The Nicene creed is also Catholic, the Trinity is Catholic, the dual nature of Christ is Catholic too.... and yes Christmas can be called Catholic too.In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.
I knew it was unlikely to have been the Methodists.In other words, I am not incorrect to say that the word "Christmas" is tied to the term "Christ mass" (which is Catholic). To ignore this is to ignore history.
Your claim that those practices arose out of paganism is false.
The practices arose within Christian communities, blood bought, Spirit filled members of the body of Christ.The practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them.
Last I heard, people were not required to become Jews first before becoming Christians.Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.
The practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them. Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.
So only pre-Christian observances, none of which center on our Lord Christ, are allowed. Nah, that’s a FailThe practices arose from cultures apart from Christianity, which is not a source for them. Christianity has the Bible, and the Bible has days in it mentioned for observance. It is with much said about those.
the first recorded celebration of Christ’s Nativity took place in Rome, as noted in the Chronograph of 354, a Roman document. This date was likely chosen to align with existing Roman festivals,
Trying to stop Christians from celebrating Christmas because it is not scriptural and originates as a pagan holiday misses the meaning of Christmas.
And also ignores the fact that it did not originate as a pagan holiday, but rather was celebrated on January 6th, together with the Baptism of our Lord (and still is among the Armenians), before in response to Arianism, the heretical rejection of the Incarnation and the deity of Christ, being moved to a separate day, which was predetermined by the other feast of the Incarnation, the Annunciation (on which the miraculous conception of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ is celevrated), on March 25th. March 25th + 9 months is December 25th, and the Annunciation feast predated the separation of the Feasts of the Baptism and Nativity (Christmas).
There are several other reasons for rejecting the idea that Christmas is related to Sol Invictus or the Saturnalia, for example, the fact that in most ancient churches where the Feast of the Nativity is celebrated, the other major churches of antiquity which were independent of the Roman Catholic churches, these holidays were not a thing. If the sole reason for moving the feast was to stamp out a pagan celebration in Rome, the change would have remained specific to the Roman church (the Roman liturgy was, and still is, highly idiosyncratic, with many differences in the calendar and other aspects of the liturgy compared to the other ancient churches, even to those in France and Spain using Latin Gallican and Mozarabic liturgies in Latin).
At the end of the day there is no biblical practice for Christmas. But you believe in tradition, and believe that is equally authoritative. But I and a few others can come up with a new tradition tomorrow, and people can think thousands of years from now that it is authoritative. Besides one verse in Scripture (the KJV) that can be read or interpreted in your favor, the word "tradition" is also used many times in a negative sense, too. What I am driving at is that Jesus says in John 12:48 that if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day. Do you feel comfortable that some tradition by your church is sufficient to meet that criteria? I don't feel comfortable with that because I see the Orthodox church as having similar practices to the Catholic Church (Which I believe violates Scripture in several places). But you are free to believe as you wish (of course). I just don't believe your church is biblical. My encouragement to you is to ask God for the truth beyond what you think you know. If you keep asking, and you are a real truth seeker, then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.This is inaccurate. As my dearly beloved @prodromos @FenderTL5 @Jipsah @MarkRohfrietsch @Yeshua HaDerekh and @jas3 can confirm, prior to the fourth century the Feast of the Nativity (which is what every church not predominantly English speaking calls Christmas) absolutely was celebrated, but it was celebrated together with the Baptism of Christ on January 6th, and this ancient custom remains in the Armenian Apostolic Church*.
Separating the feasts was logical in response to Arianism, as a means of further stressing the doctrine of the Incarnation*, and the date for the Feast of the Nativity was obvious. At the time the other principle feast of the Incarnation was the Annunciation on March 25th (which for many centuries was used in the former Western Roman Empire as the first day of the civil year, just as September 1st was the start of the civil and ecclesiastical year in the Eastern Roman Empire (and still is the start of the church year among the Eastern Orthodox). So if you take the Annunciation, which is the celebration of St. Gabriel the Archangel announcing to our glorious lady Theotokos and ever virgin Mary that she had been selected to give birth to Christ our True God (see Luke ch. 1 and Matthew ch. 2), to which she consented, becoming glorified as the Mother of God, and add nine months to it, which is the approximate duration of a human pregnancy, you get December 25th.
Since the Feast of the Annunciation substantially predated the fourth century separation of the Feast of the Nativity from the Feast of the Baptism of Christ, we can assert that the feast of the Nativity was dated from the feast of the Annunciation, and not dated based on an attempt to disrupt the Saturnalia (an idea which many historians have pointed out is problematic, and indeed inaccurate with regards to the precise dating of the feast of Sol Invictus and the supposed parallels between them).
The morale of this story is to not rely on centuries old tracts criticizing the Roman Catholic church, particularly on issues where the question is not specific to the Roman Catholic Church, but involves all of the ancient churches, most of which were never under the control of Rome and never accepted Papal Supremacy or Papal Infallibility (indeed, the Oriental Orthodox severed communion with Rome before the Bishop of Rome even adopted the title Pope; for 300 years prior to the adoption of the title Pope in the 530s AD, the title was exclusively used by the Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, being held by such illustrious defenders of the Christian faith as St. Athanasius the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria, as well as martyrs and confessors such as St. Paul of Alexandria, martyred in the Diocletian persecution, and St. Alexander of Alexandria, who was tortured during the Diocletian persecution.
+ + +
* Here follows footnotes concerning the Armenians, on the 110th anniversary of the brutal Turkish genocide against the Armenians, which is being commemorated by several Eastern Orthodox churches in addition to the Oriental Orthodox sister churches of the Armenians. Please pray for the Armenians, who once again are threatened by genocide from Azerbaijan, which recently conquered all of the Armenian Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, and now is threatening to invade and conquer Armenia itself, who they are referring to as “Greater Azerbaijan.”
The Armenian church, newly established by St. Gregory the Illuminator, who was blessed in his efforts to convert the Armenians by an appearance of Christ our True God, on which the Armenian cathedral of Holy Etchmiadzin was built**, did not have major problems with Arianism on the scale of what was being experienced in the Greek, Latin and Syriac churches and also with the conversion of the Visigoths to the false Arian religion (later, many Visigoths, who had settled in North Africa and who had oppressed the Christians, would convert to Islam, which was not a great leap for them, since the main heresy of Arianism, the denial of the Incarnation of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, the assertion being He was a created being, inferior to and of a different nature from God the Father, is embraced by Islam, which embellishes it by also adding that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah (apparently this is the Mahdi***), but rather just one of the numerous prophets leading up to the supreme prophet Mohammed.
**This being one of the three oldest surviving cathedrals I am aware of (the others being the Hagia Sophia, which the Ottoman Muslims stole from us, and which Ataturk turned into a secular museum, but horrifically Erdogan has resumed the practice of desecrating it with Islamic worship), and the other being the cathedral on the site of the martyrdom of St. Thomas the Apostle in India, which dates to the first century, but unfortunately this was defaced by the Portuguese when they forcibly converted a large number of the Mar Thoma Christians to Roman Catholicism (they had previously been associated with the Church of the East, and a very large number wound up refusing to accept the Roman church and instead became Syriac Orthodox, with a small number later joining the Assyrian Church of the East or the Ancient Church of the East - there is some reason to believe that Christologically, the Church of the East in India was influenced by Nestorius, which is why they converted to Syriac Orthodoxy so smoothly; likewise, being relatively out of touch, they reached out in Syriac Aramaic directly to the Patriarch of Antioch, and by this time sadly the Antiochian Orthodox Church no longer used Syriac Aramaic, (although another dialect of Western Aramaic was and is used in the isolated village of Maaloula), and its doubtful the Antiochian Patriarch could have responde).
*** This poses a bit of a problem for Islam since Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi, who appeared to meet all of the prophetic qualifications for being the Mahdi, died of typhoid fever three months after brutally conquering the city of Khartoum and massacring all of the Egyptians, including women and children - he was opposed by the eccentric Christian military engineer General Charles Gordon, who had been reinstated as Pasha - viceroy or governor-general of the Sudan, in a desperate attempt by the Khedive to thwart the Mahdi after his army led by the incompetent General Hicks was destroyed by the Mahdi and its modern weapons, including artillery, captured. In many respects, Muhammed Ahmed al Mahdi could be regarded as the prototypical Islamic fundamentalist terrorist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?