Richard Pickett
Tazdog
Not sure I see that that proves that Christ was born on December 25th,or September 29th.
Religious Tradition, of God or of Man?
- Thread starter Namaste Jesus
- Start date
Not sure I see that that proves that Christ was born on December 25th,or September 29th.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I have always been interested in this question. Not because of date for Christmas, but because of the date of the festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. Who can imagine the birth of sun in December? It should have been on the day of vernal equinox. The Romans sometime or the Greek before them made a mistake somewhere (forgot to advance the calendar).
I read you on implying that there was a jewish calendar that recorded it as December 25th... my bad.
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
I seem to remember a clergyman once telling me that December 25 was the conception date not the date of birth. For the life of me though, I can't remember how he reached that conclusion. Has anyone else ever heard this?
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
No I haven't heard that one.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Someone told me that conception was March, and therefore, birth was December.
We are quite the ways from getting a definitive answer to this question....the date itself will probably never be figured out...after all...we know that we are 2-6 years off on the YEAR of his birth.
http://www.livescience.com/42976-when-was-jesus-born.html
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/568/When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm
http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/when-was-jesus-born/
http://www.livescience.com/42976-when-was-jesus-born.html
http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/ARTB/k/568/When-Was-Jesus-Born.htm
http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/when-was-jesus-born/
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
Hi Richard –
But before looking at this, some other points should be mentioned:
Clement of Alexandria (c150-215AD) mentions discussions about the date of Our Lord's birth, possibilities being March and April, but no mention of December! Origen, who succeeded Clement as head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, actually mocked the Roman practice of celebrating birthdays!
The common and popular assertion that December 25 was 'lifted' from a pagan holiday is just an assumption that's asserted by those who like to knock Christianity. There is just too much material evidence to show that the Christian communities of the first centuries were steadfast in their refusal to acknowledge any pagan festivals or practices. Not until the Church was much more secure in its foundation did this become the practice, and in the 7th we have Pope Gregory the Great writing in 601AD to the church in Britain, recommending that local pagan temples not be destroyed but be converted into churches, and that pagan festivals be celebrated as feasts of Christian martyrs.
This is theologically sound. Pagan festivals are essentially cosmically-founded, whereas Christianity saw itself as a metacosmic tradition – so the Church was simply pointing to the truths revealed beyond the veils of ignorance, and St Paul says much the same in his discourse to the Athenians from the Areopagus (Acts 17 and the reference to the statues of 'the unknown god'.)
We know that the Donatists in North Africa celebrated the Nativity on Dec 25 because they came into conflict with the Church over the celebration of the Epiphany! So we have evidence of Dec 25 being prior to 312AD.
On looking around, I've discovered some interesting facts about Sol Invictus:
No mention of Sol Invictus until Emperor Aurelian (270-275AD)
Aurelian re-introduced festival of Invictus by decree in 274AD – but not on Dec 25 – the traditional feast days of Sol (as recorded in the early imperial fasti) were August 8th and/or 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.
Aurelian declared games to Sol every four years. The best evidence suggests the games were held October 19-22.
In a 4th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354, there is listed in December: N·INVICTI·CM·XXX. This is the first indication of a feast to the Invicti (the Unconquered) on Dec 25. No mention of SOL, but it is assumed.
But, the Chronography was a gift to a Christian aristocrat, and another section of the Chronography commemorates the laying to rest of martyrs (Disposition of Martyrs, the earliest record of the Roman sanctoral), the liturgical year begins on December 25, and VIII Kal. Jan. is annotated natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea").
In a section listing the consuls, there also is a note for AD 1: dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian. These are the first references to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. Since no martyrs are mentioned after AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas observed by the Roman church in the West is presumed to date to that year.
Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25th as the Nativity of Christ.
There are many who will still assert that December 25th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25th.
In short, the evidence suggests that the Roman and Mithraic 'correspondences' with Christianity actually post-date the Christian by some margin, and are found only in Rome, the informed opinion being that both Rome and Mithraism appropriated Christian symbols, not the other way round!
+++
The most likely reason for December 25:
In Hebrew mystical speculation, the earth was made on March 25. Early Christian commemoration of the Passion falls about the same time. Prevalent in Hebrew mysticism is the idea of 'the cycle'. (The cycle is prevalent in nigh-on every tradition of mystical speculation, only modernity thinks in linear terms, something quite 'unnatural' and which has given rise to all manner of errors, the idea of 'spiritual evolution' being one, and the idea of 'progress' in terms of reincarnation being another).
Early Christian speculation on the birth of Christ was not to do with establishing 'Christmas Day' in the contemporary sense of the holiday, but was rather a reflection of a metaphysical world view. God made the world on March 25, and the Incarnation would happen on the same date, according to the law of cycles, established before the foundation of the world. Thus a conception date of March 25, and a nativity nine months later, on December 25. Our Lord would have been crucified on March 25, by the same reasoning.
Thus we have the idea of Dec 25 as the birth of Christ contemporary with Christian commentaries clearly showing that the actual date is unknown. It also appears that Dec 25 may well have emerged at various times and places, as the natural fruit of informed Hebrew mystical speculation, something later (Greek) commentaries were unaware of. It became established in Rome probably because it was quite common elsewhere, but only in that the date established the commencement of the Liturgical Cycle – a date subsequently revised, as the Roman Liturgical calendar now starts at Advent, although Advent also dates back to the very earliest days ...
Actually there is evidence, in the writings of Julius Africanus (160-240AD) and Hippolytus (170-235AD), although these come to us as subsequent copies. I'll cite the Hippolytus text:
But before looking at this, some other points should be mentioned:
Clement of Alexandria (c150-215AD) mentions discussions about the date of Our Lord's birth, possibilities being March and April, but no mention of December! Origen, who succeeded Clement as head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, actually mocked the Roman practice of celebrating birthdays!
The common and popular assertion that December 25 was 'lifted' from a pagan holiday is just an assumption that's asserted by those who like to knock Christianity. There is just too much material evidence to show that the Christian communities of the first centuries were steadfast in their refusal to acknowledge any pagan festivals or practices. Not until the Church was much more secure in its foundation did this become the practice, and in the 7th we have Pope Gregory the Great writing in 601AD to the church in Britain, recommending that local pagan temples not be destroyed but be converted into churches, and that pagan festivals be celebrated as feasts of Christian martyrs.
This is theologically sound. Pagan festivals are essentially cosmically-founded, whereas Christianity saw itself as a metacosmic tradition – so the Church was simply pointing to the truths revealed beyond the veils of ignorance, and St Paul says much the same in his discourse to the Athenians from the Areopagus (Acts 17 and the reference to the statues of 'the unknown god'.)
We know that the Donatists in North Africa celebrated the Nativity on Dec 25 because they came into conflict with the Church over the celebration of the Epiphany! So we have evidence of Dec 25 being prior to 312AD.
On looking around, I've discovered some interesting facts about Sol Invictus:
No mention of Sol Invictus until Emperor Aurelian (270-275AD)
Aurelian re-introduced festival of Invictus by decree in 274AD – but not on Dec 25 – the traditional feast days of Sol (as recorded in the early imperial fasti) were August 8th and/or 9th, possibly August 28th, and December 11th.
Aurelian declared games to Sol every four years. The best evidence suggests the games were held October 19-22.
In a 4th Century manuscript called The Chronography of 354, there is listed in December: N·INVICTI·CM·XXX. This is the first indication of a feast to the Invicti (the Unconquered) on Dec 25. No mention of SOL, but it is assumed.
But, the Chronography was a gift to a Christian aristocrat, and another section of the Chronography commemorates the laying to rest of martyrs (Disposition of Martyrs, the earliest record of the Roman sanctoral), the liturgical year begins on December 25, and VIII Kal. Jan. is annotated natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea").
In a section listing the consuls, there also is a note for AD 1: dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian. These are the first references to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. Since no martyrs are mentioned after AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas observed by the Roman church in the West is presumed to date to that year.
Even if INVICTI does refer to Sol Invictus on December 25th of this calendar, all this shows is that the celebration of Sol Invictus was placed on December 25th after Christianity had already widely accepted and celebrated December 25th as the Nativity of Christ.
There are many who will still assert that December 25th is Sol Invictus in ancient Rome. Some will even claim that another religion, Mithraism, has close connection to this December 25th celebration. In actual fact there is no ancient documentation tying Mithraism to December 25th or Sol Invictus. The Christian celebration of the Nativity of Christ as December 25th predates anything in the earliest actual documentation for Sol Invictus on December 25th.
In short, the evidence suggests that the Roman and Mithraic 'correspondences' with Christianity actually post-date the Christian by some margin, and are found only in Rome, the informed opinion being that both Rome and Mithraism appropriated Christian symbols, not the other way round!
+++
The most likely reason for December 25:
In Hebrew mystical speculation, the earth was made on March 25. Early Christian commemoration of the Passion falls about the same time. Prevalent in Hebrew mysticism is the idea of 'the cycle'. (The cycle is prevalent in nigh-on every tradition of mystical speculation, only modernity thinks in linear terms, something quite 'unnatural' and which has given rise to all manner of errors, the idea of 'spiritual evolution' being one, and the idea of 'progress' in terms of reincarnation being another).
Early Christian speculation on the birth of Christ was not to do with establishing 'Christmas Day' in the contemporary sense of the holiday, but was rather a reflection of a metaphysical world view. God made the world on March 25, and the Incarnation would happen on the same date, according to the law of cycles, established before the foundation of the world. Thus a conception date of March 25, and a nativity nine months later, on December 25. Our Lord would have been crucified on March 25, by the same reasoning.
Thus we have the idea of Dec 25 as the birth of Christ contemporary with Christian commentaries clearly showing that the actual date is unknown. It also appears that Dec 25 may well have emerged at various times and places, as the natural fruit of informed Hebrew mystical speculation, something later (Greek) commentaries were unaware of. It became established in Rome probably because it was quite common elsewhere, but only in that the date established the commencement of the Liturgical Cycle – a date subsequently revised, as the Roman Liturgical calendar now starts at Advent, although Advent also dates back to the very earliest days ...
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
I shall have to check these out....
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- 287
- Points
- 83
I don't find any problems with the position you lay out in your post and think it is persuasively written. I've looked at this material before and you're right that all the evidence and documentation points toward Christianity celebrating December 25th as the nativity before Sol Invictus was celebrated on that day.
What has always struck me about the subject is that Sol Invictus and Mithraism were mystery religions and did not always document their beliefs and practices to keep the uninitiated from knowing what they were up to. So, perhaps, there was something associated with December 25th from earlier in history that was never recorded or those records didn't survive down to today. That's always an issue for older sources, regardless of the subject matter: have they survived the passage of time in their original form or at least through the words of someone else and, if so, what was the agenda of the author who quoted the original?
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
Valid point Steve. Pretty much all we have is the documentation of those who came before us. At one time the history books probably had written that the world was flat, and one would fall off the side if they ventured too far. History has and always will be in my opinion is an interpretation of an event as perceived by the person who viewed and then recorded it. The history books are also generally written by the victor ( In cases of wars and leadership), that being said in that period of time 1 AD through about 600 AD Rome pretty much had dominion over everything. My theory is that it also dictated much of the information including history was written for posterity sake.
Thomas I see you making a defense for the day having nothing to do with the solstice or the bacchanalian festivals that accompany it...
But are you also saying you believe the 12/25 date to be accurate?
But are you also saying you believe the 12/25 date to be accurate?
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
Same with Christianity.
Possibly, but regardless of what non-Christian celebration of Dec 25 there might have been, the Christian communities would not have incorporated that date into their Liturgical calendar, there's too much material evidence for that one to fly.
I find it much more likely that Dec 25 would have come from the same place as the rest of it – the Hebrew mystical speculation. John's gospel, for example, which for so long was assumed to be Greek or even gnostically-based, is now known to be founded on Hebrew speculative mysticism. Why the Christians would have to look elsewhere, when they had such a rich source of material to hand, is an argument for someone else to make, but that's gonna be a tough furrow to plough. And, as you say, although the evidence for Dec 25 emerges in the 2nd century, it's likely the idea was around long before that.
The web is awash with all manner of nonsense when it comes to the history of Christianity – the idea that early Christianity believed in reincarnation, the Council of Nicea and Emperor Constantine's inventing Christian doctrine, Christians copying Mithraic (and other) traditional practices.
From my experience – and I think it's generic – whilst it's very difficult for a Christian source to make Christian evidence stick in the face of a largely skeptical audience, there is a marked tendency among those same skeptics to accept almost any contrary viewpoint, based on no evidence at all, without question or hesitation.
- Messages
- 1,149
- Reaction score
- 287
- Points
- 83
Oh yes. I remember that type of reception well. That was one of the most frustrating experiences I had in college when I spent a whole semester studying the Gospel of Matthew. When I used what I'd learned from that class to talk with some people in my dorm who were bashing Christianity, they dismissed instantly everything I had to say and kept referring to one questionable and unreliable source they saw on Reddit that was clearly anti-Christian and written solely to undermine without any textual support.