[My interlocutor]
"Jesus may not have been born on Dec. 25, but for all we know He was born on Dec. 25, or on a date close to that. But then it makes no difference whether or not Jesus was born on Dec. 25. The Catholic Church still has a divine right to institute a nativity festival if it deems fit, and the date of Dec. 25 is founded on an ancient tradition that reportedly is attested to as early as Tertullian and possibly St. Hippolytus in the first half of the 200s A.D., so that date is as good as any."
[Foster]
If you do not know the date that someone was born, then any date will do, right? The whole system for deriving December 25 in ancient times was faulty. First, Bible prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27) suggests that Christ was not born on December 25 or in the winter season. If Christ was 33 1/2 years old when he died, then he could not have been born in December. The account found at Luke 2:8-11 also indicates that Christ was not born in winter since the shepherds are spoken of as having their flocks out of doors then. What sane shepherd would have been keeping his flock in the fields during rough Palestinian winters? M'Clintock and Strong's _Cyclopaedia_ wisely observes:
"The day of Christ's birth cannot be ascertained from the NT, or indeed, from any other source" (II:276).
[My interlocutor]
"Wow. What are you talking about?? Saturn wasn't the sun god, Fos, and Saturnalia wasn't celebrated on Dec. 25. Even that Kelly quote doesn't make that mistake. "Christians" also didn't worship the sun god, though sometimes Christians apostatised during persecutions."
[Foster]
Maybe you need to give the inet a rest in order to do some research. The Saturnalia was a festival to Saturn and the unconquered sun. Moreover, it took place on December 25 and many of its customs are evidently retained in the Christmas celebration. The NET Bible (a non-JW source found at bible.org) notes:
"December 25 as the celebrated date of Jesus' birth arose around the time of Constantine (ca. a.d. 306-337), though it is mentioned in material from Hippolytus (a.d. 165-235). Some think that the reason for celebration on this date was that it coincided with the pagan Roman festival of Saturnalia, and Christians could celebrate their own festival at this time without fear of persecution."
While the NET Bible does not give an opinion one way or the other on this issue, it does mention that it some scholars do associate Christmas with the Roman Saturnalia.
[My interlocutor]
"Oh, I agree that the fact that Origen's opinions about birthdays are erroneous has no bearing on the point at hand. I do wonder, though, why you seemed to suggest that Origen's erroneous arguments were correct, if you don't think Origen was right."
[Foster]
I did not say that Origen's arguments were erroneous or incorrect. If you will read carefully, you will find that my point was that it does not matter whether his arguments are sound or valid (TERMINI TECHNICI in logic). The point is that Origen, Arnobius and other Christians manifested antipathy toward birthdays. That is the salient *historical* point.
[My interlocutor]
"Yes, I know what your argument is. We know that the early Christians did not usually celebrate birthdays, and therefore it is likely they did not celebrate the birth of Jesus during those early times. However, we don't know that the early Christians opposition to celebrating birthdays was universal, and we don't know that, even if they didn't celebrate birthdays, they didn't begin to make an exception in the case of Jesus' birth, say, by 250-300 A.D. In fact it would be surprising if Christians waited until 300 A.D. to start celebrating Christmas, given the fact that even in the early 200s A.D. Christians were quite interested in determining the date of His birth. To make the dogmatic and bold claim that "it is ludicrous to contend that they would have celebrated the feast of Jesus' birth at this time" is simply going much, much, much further than the evidence can justify."
[Foster]
You have it all wrong. Show me evidence that Christians prior to the fourth century celebrated birthdays at all. Indeed, their opposition to birthdays does seem to have been universal. The practice of observing Christ's birthday evidently began with fourth century Christians, who considered the sun an object of veneration or who saw a nexus between the Son and the Sun. You cannot successfully date the observance of Christ's birth before the fourth century. Read Paul Johnson's work [referenced in an earlier dialogue] for an account of how sun worship affected the "Christian" observance of Jesus' supposed birthday. The [historical] evidence from the time of Constantine and Julian the Apostate favors Johnson's narratival account.
6 comments:
Huzzah!
Pertinacious Papist,
Interesting and ambiguous choice of words. I didn't expect you to be so excited about my refutation of birthday celebration propriety. :-)
You argue that Jesus could not have been born on December 25 due to the winter weather and the shepherds' activities in Luke 2:8-11. You also use Daniel 9:24-27 to suggest a timeline that conflicts with a December birth. However, the exact date of Jesus' birth is not specified in the Bible. The fact that the shepherds were in the fields does not definitively prove that Jesus wasn't born in winter. Shepherds in the region might have kept their flocks out during the colder months in milder conditions or during particular seasons when grazing was still possible. The notion that December 25 is entirely ruled out due to weather patterns is speculative at best.
Your use of Daniel 9:24-27 to claim that Jesus wasn’t born in December also involves interpretive speculation. This prophecy discusses the timeline of the Messiah's coming but does not provide enough precision to determine the exact day or even season of His birth.
As many scholars have pointed out, the early Christian Church likely chose December 25 not because of a firm belief that Jesus was born on that day, but for other theological and symbolic reasons, including its alignment with pre-existing festivals (more on that below). The important point is that the date was chosen to honor Christ’s incarnation, not to assert historical certainty.
You claim that Christmas is rooted in the Roman Saturnalia festival and sun worship, citing sources like the NET Bible and others. While it is true that December 25 coincides with the Roman festival of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) established by Emperor Aurelian, it does not follow that early Christians were "worshiping the sun" or were influenced by pagan customs. As with many cultural adaptations throughout history, early Christians RECONTEXTUALIZED existing festivals, imbuing them with new, Christ-centered meanings. The celebration of Jesus’ birth on December 25 was not an endorsement of pagan practices but rather an effort to focus on the theological significance of the Incarnation during a time when people were already in a celebratory mood.
Even your sources, like the NET Bible, are cautious about making definitive claims that Christmas and Saturnalia are directly connected. The early Church’s decision to celebrate Christ's birth on this date can be seen as part of a broader strategy to provide a Christian alternative to popular pagan festivals, a practice seen in many areas of Church history.
You emphasize that early Christians, including Origen and Arnobius, showed hostility toward birthdays, suggesting that this opposition was universal and should apply to the celebration of Christ's birth as well. However, the fact that SOME early Christians opposed birthday celebrations does not mean that all Christians did, nor does it necessarily indicate that such opposition was based on any doctrinal requirement. Origen's views on birthdays, for example, were part of a broader philosophical stance influenced by his asceticism and were not representative of the entire Christian community.
Furthermore, even if early Christians were hesitant to celebrate birthdays, this does not mean that the celebration of Christ's birth was inappropriate or unwarranted. Celebrating the Incarnation—God becoming flesh—has a deep theological significance that transcends concerns about personal birthday celebrations. Over time, as theological reflection on the importance of the Incarnation grew, the Church found it fitting to commemorate Christ’s birth, recognizing its profound impact on salvation history.
You contend that the celebration of Christmas began only in the fourth century and was influenced by sun worship. While it is true that formalized Christmas celebrations became more widespread in the fourth century, it is incorrect to suggest that they were primarily motivated by pagan influences. Christian theologians and bishops of the time were deeply concerned with articulating the significance of Christ’s birth as part of their efforts to combat heresies like Arianism, which denied Christ’s divinity. By celebrating the Nativity, Christians affirmed the Incarnation and the true nature of Christ as both fully God and fully man.
The fact that Christmas became widespread during the reign of Constantine does not mean that it was a product of Constantine's supposed syncretism. Instead, it was a natural development in Christian worship, one that emphasized key theological truths. Foster’s appeal to "sun worship" overlooks the rich theological and liturgical context in which the celebration of Christmas was rooted.
Your arguments rely heavily on speculative connections between Christmas and pagan festivals and an overemphasis on early Christian opposition to birthdays. However, the historical evidence suggests that the early Church did not adopt pagan practices uncritically but rather sought to transform and Christianize cultural traditions in ways that were consistent with the Gospel. The celebration of Christmas is rooted in the theological significance of Christ's Incarnation, not in sun worship or pagan customs. While early Christians may have had varied opinions on birthdays, this does not invalidate the practice of celebrating the birth of Christ, which holds profound theological meaning for Christians across the centuries.
https://justpaste.it/6th52
https://t.ly/_Rgpi
Talk about speculative. Making up a date for Jesus' birth and celebrating his birthday with no precedent or command is speculative and goes beyond that. Please see http://seriouschristian.org/artlcles/how-we-got-christmas.html
Lots of admissions are made at that site, even if the author apparently does celebrate Christmas. We can't just make God conform to our image of him or what we desire: he tells ushow we should live or comport ourselves.
While the article on "Serious Christian" acknowledges the theological significance of the Incarnation and Christmas, it errs in equating the selection of December 25 with "adopting" pagan practices. The date of Christ's birth is indeed uncertain, but the focus of Christmas is the celebration of the Incarnation, a central Christian event. The claim that Christians chose December 25 simply to align with pagan festivals is speculative. Early Christians frequently transformed cultural dates into opportunities to celebrate Christian truths, reinterpreting them through a Christ-centered lens. As for celebrating birthdays or events without direct precedent in Scripture, Colossians 2:16 affirms Christian freedom in observing special days, and there is no command prohibiting celebrations.
Look up: https://taylormarshall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Gods-Birthday-Dec-18.pdf
Post a Comment