li0scc0 said: Re-read the post. The point is not about dates. Should I not follow the Augsburg COnfession because it was not in existence prior to 1531? Should a Presbyterian ignore the WCF for the same reasons? Dates are not the point here.
So the fact that the Church for the first 300 years did not think it was important to celebrate Christ's birthday. Then you had some pope decide to change some pagan god's birthday into a christian day and celebrate the same way as before but just christianize it.
I'll stick my neck out here and propose that what Steve is driving at is that the recognition and consequent celebration of the birth of Christ (or his death, resurrection, ascension, etc.) is based upon the fact that they are historical events in the life of Christ and thus worthy of special recognition. Further, that recognition is not necessarily nor properly legislated by any Body, whether it be the universal Church, some Pope, congregation or Pastor/Elder. It would be difficult, if not impossible for me to conceive of even one individual Christian who did not contemplate the birth of Christ before 300 A.D. Although I strongly disagree with Steve's inclusion of the Sabbath in his list, I do believe the essence of what he wrote is valid, i.e., the recognition/celebration of any of those "holy days" is a matter of conscience, aka: Adiaphora.
Now, on a more personal note. I do not get upset at all over such things as the current desire to change "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" by the masses. Let them do so.... in fact, I would sincerely encourage them to do so. For in so doing, they are rightly putting a demarcation line between their paganism and my personal adoration of Christ and rejoicing in His birth (on whatever day He was actually born). Let them do likewise to Easter, etc. I find no consolation listening to a choir of unregenerate sinners singing "Joy to the World", "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" or any other hymn/song representative of Christ's birth. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> In this particular case, I am more than willing and wanting that the world celebrate their "holiday" as they see fit and leave the celebration of the Redeemer Christ to those who know Him personally and have been reconciled to God through Him.
Thank you, Pilgrim, for your wise and mature words. I was merely curious about the historical background of the Christmas celebration and the date in particular. I certainly didn't want to cause a dispute among brothers. I think we all agree that independently of when and how the church began celebrating Christmas, it's a glorious privilege for God's people today to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior.
I was merely curious about the historical background of the Christmas celebration and the date in particular.
Though the exact date of Christ's birth is unknown, Theologians unanimously agree that it was probably not the day Christians observe it (December 25th). Because Zacharias (father of John the baptist, husband of Elizabeth) was of the division of Abijah, and considering John's birth in relationship to Jesus', most learned Theologians place the birth of Christ somewhere between September and October. The first records of anyone noting December 25 as the birth date of Jesus is in a Roman calendar dated 336 A.D. By this time Christianity was beginning to grow steadily, and By the end of the century it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.
All Christian churches except the Armenian Church observe the birth of Christ on December 25 now. The Armenians follow the old Eastern custom of honoring Christ's birth on January 6, the day of the Epiphany, commemorating in the West chiefly the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus, and in the East, Christ's baptism. Some churches hold the most elaborate festivals on January 6, and in parts of the Unitied States this date has been celebrated as "Old Christmas" or "Little Christmas."
Wes
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
In my post my intent was to show that we should not be caught up so much about the day of Christmas being the 25th. IMO the Lord’s Day is set in stone and there should be community worship on Sundays! However, the celebration of Christmas is not so …. because: (1) it was a day made up to take the place of a pagan holiday, (2) there is no command to celebrate the birth of Christ, and (3) there is no specific date set aside in Scripture to celebrate Christmas on December 25 (especially since Christ’s birth didn’t even originally happen in the month of December ….). Thus, IMO the pastors closing their churches on Sundays so their congregations could celebrate Christmas asked the wrong question. Instead of asking, “What shall we do with Church?” they should have asked, “What shall we do with Christmas?” Their answer could have been as easy as moving Christmas to Saturday the 24th and still have Sunday services on the 25th!
I personally would like to see all Christians abstain from celebrating Christmas and celebrate the birth of Christ ONLY. Just test it for let us say three years… There is no need for an exchange of gifts with each other, for no gift exchanged can even begin to compare to the gift God gave. There would be no need to have a Christmas tree (its history is explained briefly below). While I do not think either of the above two trends to be necessarily evil, I can also see great benefit in not being tied to a tradition of each… Imagine taking ALL the commercialism out of Christmas! Imagine all the money spent on gifts, trees, ornaments, and traveling, etc. being taken and feeding and evangelizing the poor (Deut 15:4, 11). However, I am not to optimistic about this plan ever coming into being for there are far too many pagan commercializing christians in our churches ….
The Christmas tree appears to be a descendent of the Paradise tree and the Christmas light of the late Middle Ages:
Quote
From the eleventh century, religious plays called "mystery plays" became quite popular throughout Europe. These plays were performed outdoors and in churches. One of the most prevalent of these plays was the "Paradise play." The play depicted the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, their sin, and their banishment from Paradise. The play would end with the promise of the coming Savior and His Incarnation (cf. Gen. 3:15). The Paradise play was simple by today's standards. The only prop on stage was the "Paradise tree," a fir tree adorned with apples. From this tree, at the appropriate time in the play, Eve would take the fruit, eat it, and give it to Adam.
Because of abuses that crept into the mystery plays (i.e., immoral behavior), the Church forbade these plays during the fifteenth century. The people had grown so accustomed to the Paradise tree, however, that they began putting their own Paradise tree up in their homes on Dec. 24. They did so on Dec. 24 because this was the feast day of Adam and Eve (at least in the Eastern Church). The Paradise tree, as it had in the Paradise plays, symbolized both a tree of sin and a tree of life. For this reason, the people would decorate these trees with apples (representing the fruit of sin) and homemade wafers (like communion wafers which represented the fruit of life). Later, candy and sweets were added.
For many Christians the Christmas tree still retains the symbolism of the Paradise tree. The tree reminds us of the tree in Eden by which Adam and Eve were overcome and which thrust them into sin. But more importantly, the tree reminds us of the tree by which our sin was overcome, namely the tree upon which Christ Jesus was crucified. Is it a stretch to refer to the cross as a tree? Hardly, for this is the language of the New Testament itself! For example, Paul writes in Galatians 3:13, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree" (quoting Deut. 21:23). And Peter writes, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed." Therefore, the Christmas tree is a wonderful symbol and reminder of our salvation and forgiveness through Jesus Christ!
Pastor Richard P. Bucher, The Origin and Meaning of the Christmas Tree
Your going to have to back that date up about 100 years there Johnnie according to this: Christmas celebration it was actually the Egyptian Theologians not the popes that started the celebrations. And that was around 200 AD. Not only that but a little paragraph in Wikipedia also show an alternative view on to why December 25 was chosen.
Quote
* The date of Christmas is based on the date of Good Friday, the day Jesus died. Since the exact date of Jesus' death is not stated in the Gospels, early Christians sought to calculate it, and arrived at either March 25 or April 6. To then calculate the date of Jesus' birth, they followed the ancient idea that Old Testament prophets died at an "integral age"—either an anniversary of their birth or of their conception. They reasoned that Jesus died on an anniversary of the Incarnation (his conception), so the date of his birth would have been nine months after the date of Good Friday—either December 25 or January 6. Thus, rather than the date of Christmas being appropriated from pagans by Christians, the opposite is held to have occurred. [See Duchesne (1902) and Talley (1986).]
Your going to have to back that date up about 100 years there Johnnie according to this: Christmas celebration it was actually the Egyptian Theologians not the popes that started the celebrations.
The day they celebrated was 20 May, not 25 Dec. JB was referring to the Church celebration on 25 Dec, a day linked to Mithra's birthday and which the popes accepted…..
PS: Mithraism was celebrated app. 2500 years before the birth of Christ (practiced in the Roman Empire from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD). There are references to it even in Ezra (1:8; 4:7).
according to your articles;
Quote
The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. Mommsen (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 12, p. 338) has collected the evidence for the feast, which reached its climax of popularity under Aurelian in 274. Filippo del Torre in 1700 first saw its importance; it is marked, as has been said, without addition in Philocalus' Calendar. It would be impossible here even to outline the history of solar symbolism and language as applied to God, the Messiah, and Christ in Jewish or Chrisian canonical, patristic, or devotional works. Hymns and Christmas offices abound in instances; the texts are well arranged by Cumont (op. cit., addit. Note C, p. 355).
Relztrah said: Thank you, Pilgrim, for your wise and mature words. I was merely curious about the historical background of the Christmas celebration and the date in particular. I certainly didn't want to cause a dispute among brothers. I think we all agree that independently of when and how the church began celebrating Christmas, it's a glorious privilege for God's people today to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior.
One of the problems with the date of dec 25 is (Luk 2:8) And in the same country there were shepherds living in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
It is cold and rainy in December. Sheperds left the field in Sept to early Oct.
John Gill wrote: "the Rabbins teach, that these are they of the wilderness, or fields, and these are they of the house; they of the field are they that go out on the passover, and feed in the pastures, and come in at the first rain; and these are they of the house, all that go out and feed without the border, and come and lie within the border (fixed for a sabbath day's journey): Rabbi says, those, and those are of the house; but these are they that are of the field, all they that go out and feed in the pastures, and do not come in to remain, neither in the days of the sun, nor in the days of the rains.
Last edited by Johnnie_Burgess; Wed Dec 14, 20059:53 AM.
Joe I was responding to this quote (which I should have put in the response)
Quote
So the fact that the Church for the first 300 years did not think it was important to celebrate Christ's birthday.
The fact is at least part of the Church (ie Egyptians) celebrated Christ's birthday. Admittedly it wasn't on December 25th. But it was celebrated and this occured 100 years before they decided to oust Mithra. Now that the "bishops of Rome" decided that Sol Invictus was a better date than the 20th of May well who cares really? I don't, in fact if we're ousting pagan gods I say lets oust more. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Peter
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself. Augustine of Hippo
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
