The Pagan Origin Of Christmas: Jesus Was Not Born On December 25th But Some Pagan Gods were!

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

Alrighty, I will come out and state that the BIBLE prophesied thru the old Feast Days, and the Sabbatical years, that Jesus would be born on Sept. 1th, killed on Good Friday, and raised up three days later. Those are also prophetic Feast Days, of precisely those events. ALL Feast Days were prophetic, and are fullfilled on the exact day of the Feast that was commemorating the event that had not occured yet. The only different Feast Day is the Feast of Trumpets that is unknown by man until the moon is spotted by two observers. No man knows the day. Either ONE day, or the NEXT. This commemorates the Day that Jesus will return to set up His kingdom on Earth, following a bad time known as the Tribulation.
September 11th is a day that, naturally, the head ET Lucifer would want to pull off some major disaster to make the day anathema to us all, except the worshipers of the Moon god, Allah.
I thought about this all day yesterday, and came on here wanting to start a thread called something like 'Take the Christ out of Saturnalia', or something. It was a Babylonian holiday, adapted by the Romans, and the Roman Emperor Constantine 'Christianized' it so they could keep it. Very popular holiday, all thru the last three thousand years. An ancient holiday when Christ was born. Ancients did not celebrate birth days so much as death days. Celebrate what the person did, not what they might do. The end, not the beginning. So it is not really a 'Christian' holiday at all. The idol worshippers mixed 'holy with unholy'. It is such a joke that people are always saying things like 'The Reason for the Season'. Au contare.

reply to post by Level X
That is nutso. There is more evidence to corroborate Jesus birth, death, AND resurrection, than there is to prove many things we know in history. Only an athiest who refuses to admit he is answerable for his wrongs would say something so absurd.

Here is a new article on the origins of the date of Christmas,

How December 25 Became Christmas

www.bib-arch.org...

There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point.

Finally, in about 200 C.E., a Christian teacher in Egypt makes reference to the date Jesus was born. According to Clement of Alexandria, several different days had been proposed by various Christian groups. Surprising as it may seem, Clement doesn’t mention December 25 at all. Clement writes: “There are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the 28th year of Augustus, and in the 25th day of [the Egyptian month] Pachon [May 20 in our calendar]...And treating of His Passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the 16th year of Tiberius, on the 25th of Phamenoth [March 21]; and others on the 25th of Pharmuthi [April 21] and others say that on the 19th of Pharmuthi [April 15] the Savior suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi [April 20 or 21].”2

how had they settled on the dates December 25 and January 6?

Most popular, pagan origins,

The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

Problems with this theory,

There are problems with this popular theory, however, as many scholars recognize. Most significantly, the first mention of a date for Christmas (c. 200) and the earliest celebrations that we know about (c. 250–300) come in a period when Christians were not borrowing heavily from pagan traditions of such an obvious character.

Yet, in the first few centuries C.E., the persecuted Christian minority was greatly concerned with distancing itself from the larger, public pagan religious observances, such as sacrifices, games and holidays. This was still true as late as the violent persecutions of the Christians conducted by the Roman emperor Diocletian between 303 and 312 C.E.

an anonymous Christian treatise titled On Solstices and Equinoxes, which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa. The treatise states: “Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March [March 25], which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day he was conceived on the same he suffered.”11 Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice.

Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice.

Connecting Jesus’ conception and death in this way will certainly seem odd to modern readers, but it reflects ancient and medieval understandings of the whole of salvation being bound up together. One of the most poignant expressions of this belief is found in Christian art. In numerous paintings of the angel’s Annunciation to Mary—the moment of Jesus’ conception—the baby Jesus is shown gliding down from heaven on or with a small cross (see photo of detail from Master Bertram’s Annunciation scene); a visual reminder that the conception brings the promise of salvation through Jesus’ death.

The notion that creation and redemption should occur at the same time of year is also reflected in ancient Jewish tradition, recorded in the Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud preserves a dispute between two early-second-century C.E. rabbis who share this view, but disagree on the date: Rabbi Eliezer states: “In Nisan the world was created; in Nisan the Patriarchs were born; on Passover Isaac was born...and in Nisan they [our ancestors] will be redeemed in time to come.” (The other rabbi, Joshua, dates these same events to the following month, Tishri.)14 Thus, the dates of Christmas and Epiphany may well have resulted from Christian theological reflection on such chronologies: Jesus would have been conceived on the same date he died, and born nine months later.15

In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own too.16

Anyway I thought the article was interesting there is a lot more to read at the link, have fun picking it apart.

also
The Nativity According to Luke
www.bib-arch.org...

[edit on 123131p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by Kapyong

 

in no way alters the fact that the early Christian Church hijacked the 25th of December as the date of birth of Jesus for there own ends.

Uh, actually, it wasn't the church that did that, it was the Roman Emperor Constantine, as a matter of political expediency. He had a large empire of people worshipping many gods, and a large growing group of Christians. So he combined them. Took the 'gods' and gave them 'saint' names, took the religious holidays and made them 'christian'. In Europe, you can still drive in the country and see little roadside alters to these 'saints', where they leave 'offerings' and prayers for the appropriate subject, just exactly like they did previously under pantheism. The difference is that now, they have 'christian' names. Rome had much political power, used religion, and to negate that, England created the Church of England, with their 'pope' the King of England. But the same religion in essence. And to escape THAT man made religion, the Protest-ants sailed to America to follow the God of the Bible, not the gods of man. But their desendants adopted many of the NONCHRISTIAN practices, beliefs, and holidays from the man made religions. Constantine also didn't like Jews, so he tried to change Gods' Sabbath to the first day of the week. Only problem is, God doesn't pay any attention to him, and will later restore it. Along with the demise of CHRISTMAS. Do you need the excuse of 'Christmas' to do the things you should always do?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Gregarious]

Originally posted by woodwytch
reply to post by x2Strongx

 

The word Pagan is the correct umberella terminology for all pre/non christian beliefs.

For some reason I see Jews, Buddhists, Confucianists, and a number of others not really liking to be labeled "pagan". Heck even metropolitan Romans would have taken offense at being called a pagan.

The term Pagan itself means country dweller. The modern equivalent would be like calling someone a hick or redneck. Even the Roman legions used the word as somewhat of an insult.

Historically Christianity spread fast in European cities. The stubborn backwoods hicks were the ones who held on to the folk religions. This is why the term "pagan" became associated with non Christians.

Heathen means something along the lines of "Hick" as well. Someone who lives in the Heath or Heathland.

Pagan, Heathen, Yokel, Hick, Hillbilly, and Bumpkin all have very close
meanings.

A more correct term that I wish more scholars would use is Orthopraxic religions.

Abrahamic faiths are Orthodox religions, Orthodox meaning that the right belief aka "faith" is required. Just to note Hinduism and Buddhism at their cores are Orthodox, yet on the surface appear to be polytheistic. Below that surface is something quite different and definitely not to be confused with the polytheists in Rome, Athens, or Heliopolis. The "gods" of Hinduism are personifed and anthropomorphised facets of one supreme being. Buddha taught not to worship any gods and that they were not required for enlightenment.

Animistic and Polytheistic religions are Orthopraxic, meaning the right practices are more important than right beliefs or thoughts. For them its all about traditions and obligations.

The world, IMO would have been better if it had followed Hadrian instead of Constantine.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by hadriana]

Gday,

Originally posted by Gregarious
That is nutso. There is more evidence to corroborate Jesus birth, death, AND resurrection, than there is to prove many things we know in history. Only an athiest who refuses to admit he is answerable for his wrongs would say something so absurd.

Not true.

There is no contemporary or historical evidence for Jesus.
Just anonymous stories from long after his alleged times.

We do even not have ONE authentic claim to have MET Jesus!
(Merely one forged such claim in 2 Peter.)

All the alleged 'evidence' for Jesus (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Thallus etc.) turns out to be merely 2nd century evidence for Christians, or corrupt passages, or not about Jesus at all.



K.

Originally posted by hadriana
The world, IMO would have been better if it had followed Hadrian instead of Constantine.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by hadriana]

Hadrian was a butcher, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Jews. He attempted to have Judaism wiped out, by making the Torah, the Hebrew calendar, and circumcision illegal. He renamed Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina, built a temple to Jupiter on the temple mount, renamed Judea into Syria Palaestina, and even forbid Jews from entering Jerusalem. Last but not least he had assassins and bounty hunters hunt down members of the House of David.

The world would be a much better place without men like Hadrian or Constantine.

Instead the world needs leaders like the Mughal emperor Akbar the Great who worked for religious tolerance and brought members from different faiths together to discuss religion and philosophy.

The Mauryan emperor Ashoka the Great who worked for peace and tolerance is another prime example. He was the first emperor in history, around 240 BCE, to ban slavery and help protect the environment.

Originally posted by Kapyong

All the alleged 'evidence' for Jesus (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, Thallus etc.) turns out to be merely 2nd century evidence for Christians, or corrupt passages, or not about Jesus at all.

Text from Josephus - - which "proves Jesus existence" has been declared fake and added to his original writings.

You would think someone who caused so much political chaos would have some mention during the time he lived. But so far there is none.

This is not my work. I'm just cutting and pasting. I don't want to take credit for other peoples efforts:

There is a very widespread theory that Christmas began in Rome as a response to pagan festivities centering around the winter solstice, which was locally considered to be 25 December. The pagan celebration, which was first established by the Roman emperor Aurelian in AD 274, was called The Birth of the Invincible Sun. However, there is evidence that, some years earlier, Christians had made a sincere attempt to calculate the actual date of Jesus’ birthday. People commonly believe that Christmas was instituted on the date of a pagan holiday to supplant it, but it was actually the other way around. Christmas was there first.

In ancient Judaism, there was a common belief, which ancient Christians inherited, that the prophets of Israel died on the on the same date as their birth or conception. This may be behind the long-standing Christian custom of referring to the date of a martyr’s death as their “birthday in heaven.” According to ancient western calculations, Jesus was crucified on 25 March, so they assumed that 25 March was the date of Jesus’ conception. The Annunciation is still commemorated on that date to this day. Nine months after 25 March leads to 25 December, which would be the birthday of Jesus Christ if all those assumptions and calculations were correct. They aren’t correct, but the fact remains that the date has a Christian origin.

In AD 354, Philocalus wrote a Christian martyrology that dates the nativity of Jesus Christ on December 25, and cites an earlier work as backup. From this we can deduce that Christmas was celebrated on the present date at least as early as AD 335 in Rome.

* For more information, check out William J. Tighe, Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College

Gday,

Originally posted by Gregarious
Uh, actually, it wasn't the church that did that, it was the Roman Emperor Constantine, as a matter of political expediency.

Really?
Please cite the evidence that Constantine chose December 25th as the date.


K.

reply to post by EricD


Nice article - - but festivals were in relation to LIFE.

LIFE - - primarily meaning "Birth and Crops"

The naturally occurring Winter Solstice -- came before Christianity.

Easter is also a Pagan festival. Is it coincidence that Christians usurped that date as well?