1. Jesus was not born on December 25 and his DOB is not made known by his early disciples. See https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/christ-is-born
2. Christmas propagates a number of untruths (falsehoods) like Santa Claus, a man who travels around the world in one night leaving gifts for all the good children as he rides a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer. Furthermore, Santa supposedly plummets own the chimney to deliver toys, if you have one. See Ephesians 4:25; John 4:23-24.
Is it always wrong to tell a story or fable to one's child? No it is not, but the Santa Claus myth is told as though it were truly happening and it might be told for years before a child begins to see the falsity of it or is capable of knowing it's false. There is nothing wrong with telling a story but it's better told when both parties understand that the story should not be taken at face value or thought to be true.
3. The promotion of commercialism. The term "commercialism" here refers to "emphasis on the maximizing of profit" (Oxford Languages).We need commerce in this world, in some form or fashion, but we don't need commercialism in this sense of the word. Is there anything with a business making a profit? No there is not: if a merchant does not run a profitable business, then he/she will not have a business for long. Yet when it comes to Christmas, people are often forced by guilt to buy things they cannot afford and go into needless and painful debt, thereby becoming slaves to the lender (Proverbs 22:7).
4. Jesus never commanded his disciples to observe his birthday: such a command is not to be found in the Bible at all (compare John 14:15).
5. Early Jews and Christians did not celebrate birthdays--the day of death was considered better than the day of one's birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1).
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/02/birthdays-and-circumcision-again.html
6. Christmas usually promotes greed and covetousness. The norm is that children mostly focus on what they can get, and so do adults. Poor people tend to feel bad when they can't get their child that much-coveted gift which all the kids want while uber-rich couples buy each other brand new matching trucks valued at $60,000 bucks apiece or more. Of course, there is nothing wrong with buying gifts for a loved one and we should not be jealous of others, but I find commercials that tout this idea of purchasing each other highly expensive gifts for the holidays (the birth of Jesus at that!) to be rather perverse. With all of the problems and suffering taking place in the world, those who have the means to help others are encouraged to buy expensive vehicles on the Lord's supposed birthday? Makes a lot of sense to me.
50 comments:
Dear Mr. Foster,
have you heard of the "abusus non tullit usum" principle? Is it biblical to phohibit it under the burden of excommunication considering Colossians 2:16?
Can you please read this?
https://justpaste.it/6th52
https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-10-012-v
Dear Nincsnevem,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I am familiar with the principle and have talked about it before here and elsewhere. But as a slight point, isn't the verb, tollit? At any rate, I agree that the abuse of good things does not destroy their legitimate use, like food or wine, for example. However, I question the legitimacy or necessity of Christmas for Christians. Maybe people could celebrate Christmas without telling falsehoods o kids or promoting greed, but we'd still be left with other problems.
Two other things: maybe it's happened before, but I've never seen anyone disfellowshipped for observing Christmas. Secondly, I will read your links, but I don't think Colossians applies to Christmas.
Nincsnevem, I must say your first link uses lots of ad hominem arguments and it does little to address my objections to Christmas. I might respond to some of it, but time is going to limit my response.
If you will read my post closely, you will notice that I never appealed to the "pagan roots" of Christmas as a reason why one should not celebrate the holiday. I say this in response to the second link you provided. Best regards.
"In 2017, 55 percent of Americans said they celebrated Christmas as a religious holiday, including 46 percent who saw it primarily as a religious holiday and 9 percent who said it was both religious and cultural. Thirty-three percent celebrated it as primarily a cultural holiday, the study said."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/13/us/christmas-less-religious.html
Christmas celebration has many forms and aspects. By definition, there is the ecclesiastical form (cf. Rorate Mass too), which is the meaning of the celebration of Christ's birth (not his birthday!), and of course there is the secular-cultural form, which focuses on spending and giving gifts, or at least spending quality time with your family.
The JW's criticism of Christmas does not make this distinction at all, although faithful followers of mainstream Christianity would probably agree with the latter's criticism a lot, except that one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
For example, in Asian countries where Christianity has always been only a marginal minority, Christmas appeared there too, by definition not having much in common with the ecclesiastical form of Christmas celebration, but rather as a westernized fashion: Christmas, Santa Claus, McDonalds, iPhone.
The Swedish R.F. (since you asked me not to cite an ex-JW source, I won't do that, but you can look it up) criticizes that it is an act that results disfellowshipping at the JW organization, regardless of the circumstances. The fact that this rarely happens is not because this rule is not enforced, but because JWs themselves know that this is part of the JW identity: detachment from the world - it is no coincidence that it was introduced just then (Rutherford's time), when most of the doctrines designed to distance themselves from mainstream Christianity were also introduced (like the "torture stake").
Love how you didn’t appeal to the pagan roots and used others instead - however I do find the origin interesting, tho a lot deny it I find it highly likely to be the case
“but I've never seen anyone disfellowshipped for observing Christmas” - I know from a witness’ first hand account this is a totally wrong and dishonest claim - tho it is discouraged Christmas and birthdays are not disfellowshipping offence.
If the person claiming this hasn’t been a witness themselves they should probably stop spreading rumours and myths which are untrue
Is it a "lie" to tell your child about Santa Claus? I don't think it's a lie if you already know that it's just a fairy tale. Just as it is not a lie to tell about the tooth fairy, or Snow White, etc.
By the way, only in the Anglo-Saxon culture is the confusion of Santa Claus with the Christmas so widespread, in Catholic Europe the holiday of "Santa Claus" is December 6, the feast of Saint Nicholas of Myra, clearly distinguished from Christmas.
Of course, Saint Nicholas of Myra was a real person whose life story is an example of a Christian way of life, not the same as popular ideas about Santa Claus (sleigh, reindeer, etc.).
In Spain, the distinction is even more precise, because there the gift-giving is not on December 25, but on January 6, which is the Epiphany, the holiday of the visit of the wise men from the east, who of course brought Jesus gifts.
"But as a slight point, isn't the verb, tollit?" - It is, sorry, misspelled.
"I don't think Colossians applies to Christmas." - I think Colossians 2:16 refers to keeping all holidays and cultural customs of "pagan origin", but with innocent intentions, so that we should not judge our fellow believers based on this.
By the way, I have debated this "pagan origin" argument many times, more times not with JWs, but with evangelicals, who also abhor such things in a similar way, "thanks" to the work of Alexander Hislop. Cf. Poisoning the well, Genetic fallacy.
I think there is a kind of dualisr worldview behind this fear. According to the Christian worldview, the Evil is not an independent principle with the same power as God, but a lack, just as darkness is simply the absence of light. You cannot mix darkness with light, because light extinguishes darkness.
Look up the meaning of the term "inculturation" in Catholicism. The goal was never the paganization of Christianity, but the Christianization of the (originally) pagan culture.
Check these:
* https://shorturl.at/ehpy8
* https://t.ly/uzD0l
Romans 14:6?
These comments are from Nincsnevem. I edited them slightly because he mentioned a confidential JW reference within his remarks. As an elder and Witness of Jehovah, I cannot knowingly allow confidential material to be cited or quoted on this blog. Thanks.
Nincsnevem wrote:
@Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_congregational_discipline#Discipline_involving_%22serious_sin%22
"Jehovah's Witnesses consider many actions to be "serious sins", for which baptized Witnesses are subject to a judicial committee hearing. Such actions include: [...]
* celebrating religious and national holidays"
Source:
* Correspondence Guidelines. Watch Tower Society. p. 63. False religious holidays, such as Christmas (w00 12/15 3-7; w97 12/15 3-7; g81 12/22 16-17), Easter (w96 4/1 3-5; g86 3/22 5-8), and Halloween (g01 10/8 3-10; g81 10/22 16), all have pagan roots and are not shared in by true Christians. ... Our publications have commented on the following holidays: New Year's Day (g02 1/8 20-1; g86 12/22 20-1; w74 1/1 32); Thanksgiving Day and harvest-day festivals (w97 9/15 8-9; g76 11/22 9-13); Father's Day, Mother's Day, and Valentine's Day (g74 2/8 27-8); carnival celebrations (g96 6/8 14- 15); and Hanukkah.—g90 12/8 11-13.
* You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth. Watch Tower Society. p. 214. So holidays that tend to exalt a man or a human organization are not in harmony with God's will, and true Christians will not share in them.
See Galatians 4:8-11 too, which I don't think primarily has Christmas in mind although the principle could apply.
Historically, we also know that the 1st century Christians, including Jesus, did not celebrate birthdays or the Lord's birthday. Origen and Arnobius spoke ill of birthdays and the earliest testimony we have for Christmas being observed is the 4th century. As mentioned before, I did not use the pagan origin way of arguing. However, I don't see that view as necessarily being dualistic. Compare 2 Cor. 6:14-17.
Nincsnevem, you might be familiar with Joseph Kelly: he wrote a popular book about Christmas, but he also said: "The earliest Christians did not even celebrate Christmas. Not until the mid-fourth century does any evidence survive of such a celebration, and even then it had a strong secular element."
https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2009/12/the_true_meaning_of_christmas.html
He concluded this article thus:
"The 'true meaning of Christmas' includes both the religious and the secular. Yes, people can overdo the secular by consumerism, but they can also overdo the religious by insensitivity toward those who do not celebrate Christmas. Balance both elements, enjoy them both, and have a Merry Christmas."
Now I just answer that Christmas is NOT the "birthday" of Jesus, but the celebration of his birth, let's make this distinction. The celebration of his birth does not have to coincide with the actual day of his birth, this was the case of the Queen Elizabeth II:
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-did-queen-have-two-birthdays
In my opinion, Ecclesiastes 7:1 is not relevant here, the narrator does not make a dogmatic revelation here, but the usual point-and-counterpoint style of the book of Ecclesiastes, and he reflects in the voice of skepticism.
My Protestant commentary at hand writes this about Galatians 4:8-11:
Those who return to the Mosaic law again thrust themselves into a state of slavery. Some have given up the freedom of the sons of God and wanted to establish Jewish legalism as some kind of higher religion. It is incomprehensible to Paul what happened to the Galatians: for they have returned to a paganism similar to the old paganism they once abandoned. In their former paganism, they were religious: they served imagined gods, idolized natural forces and ideas, offered sacrifices, and celebrated splendid festivals, but they did not know the living God. Now they have festivals again: Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles, and they observe many religious prescriptions associated with them. Essentially, only the names and forms of customs are different, the matter itself is the same. They did not become Christians from pagans, but Jews; their supposed progress, a regression. Yet in the meantime, a great turnaround has happened to them, God's bright sun has broken through the dark fog of paganism and lit up their lives.
In verse 10, therefore, 'the days' refer to the Sabbaths, 'the months' to the new moon festivals, 'the times' to the annual major festivals (Passover, Shavuot, the Feast of Tabernacles), 'the years' to the New Year, the sabbatical year, and the jubilee year (every fiftieth year), as ordained in Jewish Law. (See also Col. 2:16.)
I agree with your commentary about Galatians 4, and that's why I said the verse is not primarily about Christmas, but principles could apply. Moreover, what the commentary states about Galatians could be applied to Colossians 2:16-17.
Did ancient Jews or Christians observe DOBs or celebrate them? I have yet to see evidence of any such thing before the 4th century.
It is not incidental that December 25 is tied to Christmas. The traditional church date for Christ's birth I'd December 25. I used to celebrate the day and was taught it's Hesus birthday.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas/
The context was that the Galatians showed Judaizing tendencies, which is why the Apostle Paul came out against these aspirations with such strong words. The Galatians kept the Jewish holidays, and the context shows that it was not out of mere cultural custom (since they were not even of Israelite origin), but out of some religious motive that was capable of undermining the authority and supremacy of the Gospel of Christ.
When such a danger does not arise, but cultural traditions, especially when it comes to holidays with a specifically Christian message, then this biblical place does not say anything condemning it, Romans 14:6 and Colossians 2:16 remain.
In the very first two centuries, the Christians (who at that time numbered at most a few tens of thousands, at most a hundred) celebrated what kind of holidays and how, there are hardly any sources available that would entitle us to make such bold statements. But just out of curiosity, I wrote in Wikipedia that "Christmas" says this:
"In the 2nd century, the "earliest church records" indicate that "Christians were remembering and celebrating the birth of the Lord", an "observance [that] sprang up organically from the authentic devotion of ordinary believers"; although "they did not agree upon a set date".
This is the point, not the date of December 25, or the folk customs associated with the holiday nowadays, or its secular forms of celebration. So the sources do not support the claim that the early Christians did not celebrate any other holiday, only the death of Christ, also according to the Quartodecimanist calculation. And especially not that the celebration of the Eucharist would have taken place only then, not to mention that it would have been limited only to a separate "class" of salvation.
The Church has the right to set dates for the holidays, or to cancel or change them, as it has done several times. And there is no biblical principle that everything that Christ did not command to be celebrated is expressly forbidden under the burden of excommunication.
A good parallel is the issue of circumcision. At the Council of Florence in 1442, it was stated that:
[The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior] "firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation." (Cantate Domino)
However, this only applies to circumcision for religious (e.g. Jewish or Muslim) reasons, not to circumcision for health or mere custom. For example, in the USA, where the majority of male children are routinely circumcised, regardless of religion, this anathema does not apply to them.
In the same way, those who celebrate a Jewish holiday, because e.g. a Jew living in Israel who converts to Christianity, and not for religious reasons, but e.g. "observes" the holiday of Yom Kippur as a family tradition or as a cultural tradition, does not sin against the Christian faith.
Nincsnevem,
I've combed the early church records from the 1st-2nd centuries CE and read what ecclesiastical historians have written about the period, and I've found no evidence that 1st-2nd century Christians observed the birth of Christ. Exactly what records do you have in mind?
Joseph Kelly appears to maintain that Christmas has always been a mix of the secular and holy, and he doesn't seem to think those two things can be disentangled.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the "birthdays" of the gods.
It dates evidence for the early Christmas feast at around 200 AD, but most sources I've consulted provide a later date (336 CE).
You keep bringing up excommunication, but I think you could probably take the time to learn how it actually works among Jehovah's Witnesses. We do not believe that one has to have an explicit command from Jehovah or Christ in order for something to be permissible or actionable. Moreover, disfellowshipping is not a first, but a last resort when a person is unrepentant and it's for certain sins. Technically, a person could commit adultery, but not be disfellowshipped. It would depend on the circumstances and the person's attitude. On the other hand, some offenses might not even merit a judicial hearing. Things are more complex than they've been presented.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3152491.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3A4d53fc035cdc3c0a153c7b713b360521&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
Conybeare article about Christmas.
https://taylormarshall.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Gods-Birthday-Dec-18.pdf
http://orthocath.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/christmas-and-pagan-origins/
As we do not know the exact date of Christ’s birth, the date of December 25 for Christmas may have been arbitrary. The Church could have chosen another date on which to celebrate the birth of Christ. One reason December 25 may have been deemed suitable is its proximity to the winter solstice. After that date the days start to become longer, and thus it is at the beginning of a season of light entering the world (cf. John 1:5). The summer solstice—after which the days start to get shorter—falls near June 24, on which the Church celebrates the birth of John the Baptist, who declared of Christ, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e031rp_PaganOrigins.html
In response to the claim that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, this is a misconception popularized by American puritan Protestants who were hostile to Catholicism and fabricated the "Sol Invictus" myth. Ancient sources do not support this claim. Unfortunately, contemporary Jesuits, in their defense of the faith, aprioristically argued that this instead proved the legitimacy of Christianity, which - as is well documented - baptized the "seeds of the word" found in paganism. However, this was not the case here. Pagan emperors, following the example of Kim Jong-il and Stalin, attempted to appropriate the already existing Christian festival... unsuccessfully.
The date of Jesus' birth was not "decided upon," but celebrated in Rome as early as the 3rd century, well before the artificially established festival of "Sol Invictus." (This is why the introduction of "Sol Invictus" was unsuccessful, even among pagans.)
The birth date of Mithras is also often cited. This is a fallacy propagated by the "Zeitgeist" movement; original sources should be consulted to understand when and how Mithras was celebrated. This is akin to claiming expertise in wilderness survival and bushcraft based solely on watching the Rambo movies! Additionally, the Hellenized cult of Mithras is later than Christianity. Also, it is a common sense truth in religious studies that formal similarities may either represent completely different meanings or have no genetic relationship between two religions. Furthermore, it is demonstrable that, partly due to chronological reasons, homologous religious phenomena were incorporated into the Mithras cult in competition with Christianity, making it contrived and unviable. It was about as widespread as any modern occult sect.
As for the actual date of Jesus' birth, Gustav Teres attempted to determine this using astronomical methods in his book "The Bible and Astronomy" (2000). The date of celebration is related to the theory of "integral age." According to tradition, prophets (messengers of God) die on the day of their conception or birth. Thus, Jesus, who according to Christian belief is the prototype of the prophets, was crucified on Nisan 14, which was identified with the Greek Artemision 14. In Egypt, this was dated to April 6, 30 AD, and in the West to March 25, 33 AD. (Note: in these two years, the Jewish Passover coincided with the Sabbath.) This led to the erroneous dating of Jesus' birth. Based on the mystique of 33 years, whereas he might have been around 40 years old (even the image on the Shroud of Turin depicts such a man), it is believed he was born around 7 BC, corresponding to the Hellenic acme (prime of life).
Therefore, Christmas did not precisely coincide with the solstice (only Stalin's falsified birthday did), but was determined by adding nine months to the date of his death. This resulted in December 25 in Rome and January 6 in Alexandria, as both places chose different years (30 and 33, respectively) when Jewish Passover and Nisan 14 aligned.
Christian teachings are not fundamentally affected by the exact date of Jesus' birth or the date of the celebration. The pagan festival that can be demonstrably proven is the wheat consecration procession. Today, its significance is mostly as a tourist attraction. However, the inclusive Catholic perspective views paganism not as inherently "ab ovo" evil but as preserving fragments of the original revelation.
In Job 3:1, it's stated that Job cursed "his day", not birthdays in general. This distinction is important as it highlights that Job's curse was specific to the day of his own birth, reflecting his personal despair and not a general condemnation of celebrating birthdays.
The verse in Job 1:4, "His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day," suggests that his sons were celebrating their individual birthdays. This further supports the notion that the issue in Job was not about the general concept of celebrating birthdays but was specific to Job's personal circumstances.
In Job 3:1-3, it becomes clear that Job is specifically cursing the day of his own birth, as evidenced by the Hebrew phrase "yōwm ’iwwāleḏ" (יום אולד), which translates to "the day I was born." This further clarifies that Job's lament is a personal expression of his anguish and not a broad indictment of birthday celebrations. His words, "Let the day perish on which I was born, and the night that said, 'A man is conceived,'" reflect a deep personal grief and despair, rather than a religious or moral stance against the practice of celebrating birthdays.
Colossians 2:16 in the King James Version reads:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
On occasion, opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses will attempt to cite Colossians 2:16 out of context in an attempt to falsely accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of unscripturally condemning others for partaking in holidays - something that Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in.
However, Colossians 2:16 actually refers to the God - ordained festivals and observances of the Mosaic Law, not to "holidays" in general. The context of the verse shows that Paul was saying not to judge those who chose not to celebrate those observances, not the other way around. Paul was discussing the end of the Mosaic Law - that Christians didn't need to observe it anymore. It is not dealing with pagan and/or secular holidays at all.
Furthermore, Jehovah's Witnesses fully understand and agree that it is God alone who has the right to set standards and rules for salvation. (Isaiah 33:22; Luke 12:5) Jehovah's Witnesses understand full well that it is not their prerogative to judge and condemn others. They are in complete agreement with James when he asked, “Who are you to be judging your neighbor?” (Matthew 7:1-5; Romans 14:4, 10)
Christmas origins
https://youtu.be/5mo-jp2oWak?si=FpPCVrfAFqH__6uN
Nincsnevem, the information you provided does not demonstrate that being disfellowshipped for celebrating Christmas is a common thing among JWs. The WT makes this point about disfellowshipping in general: "If one of Jehovah’s Witnesses who is baptized commits a serious sin and does not repent, he will be disfellowshipped."
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/ws20150515/disfellowshipping-a-loving-provision/
Notice that disfellowshipping is for those who will not repent, it's not just about the act itself. Adulterers have been disciplined without being df'd and so have other sinners. Witness elders seek to help their spiritual siblings, not treat them harshly. Galatians 6:1 counsels those who are spiritual to correct a person who commits a false step, but counsel with a spirit of mildness. Spiritual discipline is about helping a Christian, not hurting him/her, just as when a parent disciplines his/her child.
Word Biblical Commentgary (Job 1-20) by D. Clines:
The ―day‖ of each brother would most naturally be his birthday (cf.
―his day‖ in 3:1; and Hos 7:1) or perhaps is simply equivalent to on his appointed day, i.e., when his turn came around‖ (Gordis). The occasions of the feasts are unlikely to have been annual festivals like Ingathering (as Pope),
since such religious festivals would have been celebrated at the parental home.
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job by Driver and Gray (page 7):
"On his day] the day on which it fell to him to entertain: scarcely his (birth-)day (cp. 3¹), for the banqueting-days were apparently (5) a round of seven successive days , which the birthdays of the seven would not naturally have been."
Hey Edgar,
Great article as usual. This really just simply comes down to one thing and that's how Jehovah God views Christmas or any other man made holiday with pagan origins. Any involvement with false gods (paganism) is detestable to him. Just reread the 10 commandments and the account of Moses and Aaron with the golden calf. Humans do not have the power or right to make something holy that God has deemed vile no matter how they try to dress it up. When something is born of a false god it can never cleaned in
his eyes. He does not change.
You can put lipstick on a pig.....you know the rest. Keep up the faithful works.
Hello Anonymous my friend,
Thank you. I agree 100% that what Jehovah says should determine our stance on Christmas. In harmony with your point, Paul taught that holiness cannot be mixed with impurity.
You all should read this: https://docdro.id/8xlLlrB
Since the Watchtower literature and JW identity rely heavily on Hislop's theory, it is worthwhile to outline this question.
"Paul taught that holiness cannot be mixed with impurity."
The verses cited in this regard only serve as a legitimate argument against syncretism or irenicism, but not against inculturation.
This double standard is also interesting, since while Christmas etc. JWs refers to the "pagan origin", while in other cases they admitted that it does not matter what the origin of an exercise is, pagan or not pagan, but:
"In such matters, what generally is influential is whether a practice is _now_ linked to false religion." (w92 9/1 pp. 30-31)
"Admittedly, true Christians today are not preoccupied with the roots and possible ancient religious connections of _every_ practice or custom..." (w98 10/15 pp. 30-31)
"Even if it were a fact that pagans _first_ used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices. [...]
Really, the question is not so much whether wedding rings were first used by pagans but whether they were _originally_ used as part of false religious practices and _still_ retain such religious significance." (w72 1/15 pp. 63-64)
"Still, all kinds of objects, designs, and practices have, at some time or place, been given a false interpretation or have been linked with unscriptural teachings. Trees have been worshiped, the heart shape has been viewed as sacred, and incense has been used in pagan ceremonies. Does this mean that a Christian must never use incense, have trees in any decoration, or wear heart-shaped jewelry? That is not a valid conclusion.
A genuine Christian should consider: Would following a custom indicate to others that I have adopted unscriptural beliefs or practices? The time period and location could influence the answer. A custom (or design) might have had a false religious meaning millenniums ago or might have such today in a distant land. But without going into time-consuming investigation, ask yourself: ‘What is the common view where I live?’—Compare 1 Corinthians 10:25-29." (w91 10/15 pp. 30-31)
So why can't the SAME standard be used to judge ALL customs?
Nincsnevem,
You ask a good question, which I will likely let someone else answer, but my argument really had nothing to do with Hislop or his theory.
Yes, I think it's plausible that pagan religion has something to do with Christmas being a church observance, but I did not rely on that point.
Admittedly, I agreed with Anonymous ' comments and I do think Christmas has numerous secular and non-salutary aspects, but Witnesses stopped relying on Hislop some time ago, I believe.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/pagan-influence-fallacy
I just tentatively entered Hislop's name on jw.org, and they certainly rely on him quite heavily as a source:
https://www.jw.org/en/search/?q=Hislop&link=%2Fresults%2FE%2Fall%3Fq%3D
So, Woodrow Wilson's second book quite thoroughly refutes Hislop's theory, that it is mostly silly and forced explanation. By the way, this "pagan orign stuff is bad" ideology ironically tempted Catholicism as well, and it didn't exactly work in the Church's favor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy
In short: When the Jesuits and the Franciscans began their mission in China, they tried to use the beliefs of the Chinese with the purpose of an apologetic bridge, for example they translated the word "God" as Shàngdì.
The Dominicans said that this was wrong, since Shàngdì was already the name of the supreme deity in the old Chinese pantheon, so it was of "pagan origin", so a term for God that was not yet "contaminated" should be used. They defended themselves by saying that this is essentially the same as by linking it with the "unknown god" as described in Biblical passage of Acts 17:23–31. The Dominicans complained to the Pope, citing that such translation may associate the Christian God to Chinese polytheism.
Unfortunately, the Pope at the time listened to them, and the result was the banning of Christian missions by the emperor. Without this stupid "pagan influence" fallacy, there is a good chance that China would be a Christian country today, and history would be very different.
In the 20th century, the Pope revoked this ban, but Chinese Catholics still call God Tiānzhǔ.
The point is: Inculturation is a legitimate missionary tool, as long as it does not result in an essential compromise in its content of the Christian religion.
By the way, as far as I know, the very first historical source that claims that Christmas falls on December 25th because they wanted to override Sol Invictus is from the 12th century and is attributed to Dionysius bar Salibi. So there is not a single contemporary source that would have claimed something similar, the first speculation about it is almost a thousand years later.
1) Nincsnevem, you're correct in the sense that Witnesses used to lean on Hislop's book/theory, but not so much anymore. Check out the more recent material on the subject and I think you'll find that to be the case.
2) Witnesses don't just claim that if something is pagan, then it's bad. I think that a simplistic way of expressing our belief and it's a strawman. The real problem for us is if something originated with pagan false religion. If it misrepresents the Most High God, then we reject the practice, not simply because a pagan originated it.
3) Your other points are interesting, but I'd like to do more research on the Sol Invictus datum.
Didn't mean to make my comment under the anonymous guise. Always appreciate your hard work and research. Keep in touch. Agape.
Greatly appreciate the encouragement, my friend, and glad to see you enduring the battle. Agape.
https://thepatrologist.com/2015/12/24/4-myths-about-christmas-and-late-antiquity/
The 'Reasoning From the Scriptures' is a quite recent WT publication, still used, right?
I think this is an appropriate standard that should be applied consistently to judge everything:
"In such matters, what generally is influential is whether a practice is _now_ linked to false religion." (w92 9/1 pp. 30-31)
In the twelfth century, the Syriac theologian Dionysius Bar-Salibi wrote that December 25 was established in the West as the feast of Christ’s Nativity to coincide with the pagan Roman celebration of the Invincible Sun. He wrote:
"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day."
This concept became popular in the West particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. More recent scholarship has shown that Christmas had been observed for years before Emperor Aurelian established the pagan festival in AD 274.
More recent studies have shown that many of the holiday’s modern trappings do reflect "pagan customs" borrowed much later, as Christianity expanded into northern and western Europe. The Christmas tree, for example, has been linked with late medieval druidic practices. This has only encouraged modern audiences to assume that the date, too, must be pagan.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas/
Sorry, of course it's not Woodrow Wilson, but Ralph Woodrow :D
Sorry to say I would be very surprised if ninc’s claim is anywhere near accurate, considering the track record so far..
While the Christmas definitely was adopted from “the feast of the sun” that is not entirely why the witnesses reject it..
Nincsnevem,
Reasoning book was published in 1985. I once used it a lot in the field ministry, but not so much anymore for me. It was later revised. However, publishers should use it cautiously.
I did a search for "hislop Christmas" on JW library. I got 6 hits, all of which were from the 50s, 60s and 70s. I need to double check, but using Bishop for disproving Christmas seems to be a thing of the past for JWs.
I've seen the assertion but not seen good proof for Christmas being celebrated before the 4th century
blogspot.com/2022/01/the-habitation-of-nonsense.html
Would love to read this book, https://books.google.com/books?id=6MXPEMbpjoAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Toward+the+Origins+of+Christmas&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjH3K2q_7mDAxVKRjABHc3pA9MQ6AF6BAgGEAE#v=onepage&q=Toward%20the%20Origins%20of%20Christmas&f=false
Dr. Susan K. Roll writes that a sermon by Bishop Optatus of Milevis "represents the earliest liturgical evidence for a feast of the Nativity of the Lord on December 25, and may constitute the earliest credible textual witness to a Nativity feast in the West, aside from possibly spurious additions to the text of the Chronograph of Philocalus of 354. These additions were thought to constitute the earliest notation of a Nativity feast on that date in a Western calendar, using source material dated by many twentieth-century scholars from the year 336. This alone makes this sermon text significant for tracing the historical origins of the Nativity feast: it may be the earliest reliable extant witness."
See https://www.ismreview.yale.edu/volume-3-1-fall-2016/christmas-in-fear-or-looking-over-ones-shoulder-at-the-creche
Truth is truth wherever it is found. The Catholic Church, following St. Paul’s example, makes use of existing practices to spread Christ’s message.
All of God’s creation is good. An act or practice (not including those that are immoral, like cannibalism or human sacrifice) can be good or evil depending on the circumstances and meaning given to it. During the fourth century, many items or gestures from pagan rituals were indeed blended into the Christian faith: such as genuflection, incense, and candles. But there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such things; even if they were part of pre-Christian worship, their incorporation into Christian practice does not necessarily constitute a pagan “pollution” of Christianity.
In fact, by adopting pre-Christian elements and practices—devised by men in an attempt to reach God without the benefit of revelation—the Church can “reclaim” them for Christ, directing them toward the worship of the true God. For example, the pagans of northern Europe (like the ancient enemies of the Hebrews) used trees as idols. We use the evergreen Christmas tree as a symbol of everlasting life: life in the dead of winter, just as Christ brought life to the deadness of humanity. The tree itself is a neutral (and beautiful) object: a part of God’s good creation. The key to true worship is the inner attitude—the heart (See, for example, Mk.7:6–8).
Some object that the word “Easter” is of pagan origin; hence many non-Catholic Christians prefer the term “Resurrection Day.” Now the etymological derivation of the word is uncertain, buts some think it came from the Anglo-Saxon spring goddess, Eostre. If so, using the word to signify Christ’s Resurrection would represent another Christianization or “baptizing” of a human custom in order to supersede the old paganism and give the rituals an entirely new meaning in the light of Christ’s revelation. A word is not evil in and of itself. Even sacred words usually have secular origins.
The Bible does contain indications of this practice, such as the Apostle Paul’s speech to the Greek intellectuals and philosophers at Areopagus, or Mars Hill, in Athens. Here, in Acts 17:15-34, he effectively evangelized by using symbols and ideas familiar to his hearers. He complimented their religiosity and noted a pagan “altar” (an idol!) with the inscription, “To an unknown god.” He then preached that the “unknown god” was Yahweh, the God of the Jews; the true God, as opposed to “shrines made by man,” and the sovereign and sustaining creator. He quoted pagan poets and philosophers—Epimenides of Crete (also cited in Titus 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia—and expanded upon their understanding.
When the Church annexes pagan customs and holy days such as Easter, Christmas, All Souls Day, and All Saints Day, it is simply utilizing St. Paul’s evangelization strategy. This does not represent a wholesale adoption of paganism, or some diabolical mixture of idolatry and paganism with Christianity. If that were true, Paul would also stand guilty. Yet he states with confidence:
1 Corinthians 9:19–22: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law — though not being myself under the law — that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”
Interestingly, this critique can backfire on Protestants, for skeptics make a similar criticism of Christianity itself: tracing the doctrine of the Trinity to Babylonian three-headed gods, for example, and Christ and His Resurrection to Mithraism or one of many other “God-hero myths.” But these pagan associations (or curious similarities) don’t stop Protestant critics of the Catholic Church from believing in the Triune God or the Resurrection. Neither do the superficial similarities between Marian veneration and Isis-worship stop Catholics from properly honoring the mother of their savior.
“There lurked in those pagan festivals themselves, in spite of all their sensual abuses, a deep meaning and an adaptation to a real want; they might be called unconscious prophecies of the Christmas feast… the Sun of righteousness, the Light of the world…on the twenty-fifth
of December, after the winter solstice, breaks the growing power of darkness, and begins anew his heroic career.”
PHILIP SCHAFF (PROTESTANT CHURCH HISTORIAN)
Post a Comment