Is it wrong for Christians to celebrate Christmas because of its pagan origins?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

With Christmas in a few days, I can't help but ask: do you think it's wrong for Christians to celebrate holidays like that that were adopted from pagan origins?  I especially wonder when you consider that Jesus probably wasn't born on December 25th.  Tell me what you think.  Also: since the Julian/Gregorian calendar didn't come into effect until after the Roman empire and the Catholic church, should Christians follow the Jewish calendar instead?  A guy from my church pointed to Daniel 7:25 as evidence of this (and of the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday) and said that the Hebrew calendar was "God's calendar." 

[justfollowingtheelections]

It doesn't matter.  I'm not religious and I still celebrate Christmas.

[Robert California]

It doesn't matter.  I'm not religious and I still celebrate Christmas.

The question wasn't for you.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If it makes you feel better, most of the so-called 'pagan origins' of Christmas are examples of modern pseudohistory.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

If it makes you feel better, most of the so-called 'pagan origins' of Christmas are examples of modern pseudohistory.

How?

[Robert California]

If it makes you feel better, most of the so-called 'pagan origins' of Christmas are examples of modern pseudohistory.

I've heard that too.

[Smid]

With Christmas in a few days, I can't help but ask: do you think it's wrong for Christians to celebrate holidays like that that were adopted from pagan origins?  I especially wonder when you consider that Jesus probably wasn't born on December 25th.  Tell me what you think.  Also: since the Julian/Gregorian calendar didn't come into effect until after the Roman empire and the Catholic church, should Christians follow the Jewish calendar instead?  A guy from my church pointed to Daniel 7:25 as evidence of this (and of the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday) and said that the Hebrew calendar was "God's calendar." 

Reminds me of the food sacrificed to idols question in 1 Corinthians 8.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, the Apostle Paul is saying the food sacrificed to idols isn't more or less holy because of this, so you can do it - but if you think it gives glory to the god to which it has been sacrificed, then you shouldn't do it - not because it actually does, but because you think it does. Likewise, if you were with someone who might feel that way, you shouldn't do it - again, not because it does, but because, in a sense, you are misleading them. I'm not saying it well, and I've always found this passage complex.

This guy seems to explain it better than I can. I don't know who he is, or what other things he believes (in other words, I'm not endorsing anything else he says, if he's part of a cult or something like that), but his study on this passage is what I was trying to say.

Basically, I'm saying I don't think it matters whether some of the Christmas traditions had pagan origins or not. Christmas (for a Christian) is about the birth of Christ, and should be celebrated as such. I don't think anyone is going to think your Christmas tree is there to usher in Spring or whatever the pagan reason was, so like the food sacrificed to idols, I think you can put it up as a symbol of Christmas. The pagan ritual side of it is meaningless to a Christian, so it's like the food that has been sacrificed to an idol.

[bedstuy]

I'm an atheist but...

It seems to me that Christianity is a relatively monotheistic yet ultimately polytheistic religion.  And ultimately, the oldest traditions in Western culture are going to derive from other polytheistic traditions.  There isn't any reason to ruin eggnog or reindeer over that. 

Also, if you start deconstructing religious traditions like that, the Bible should give you a lot more questions about the birth of Jesus because it contradicts itself on when Jesus was born, whether he was born from a virgin and seems to be making up the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Keep in mind that Christmas is a minor holiday. Pascha is the important holiday. Luke is the gospel writer who seems to have worried most about the birth and his whole account of the births of John and Jesus seems to be designed to place their conceptions and births on the solstices and equinoxes.  It also seems to be designed to convince the followers of John to become followers of Jesus.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm an atheist but...

It seems to me that Christianity is a relatively monotheistic yet ultimately polytheistic religion.  And ultimately, the oldest traditions in Western culture are going to derive from other polytheistic traditions.  There isn't any reason to ruin eggnog or reindeer over that. 

Also, if you start deconstructing religious traditions like that, the Bible should give you a lot more questions about the birth of Jesus because it contradicts itself on when Jesus was born, whether he was born from a virgin and seems to be making up the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

How?

[bedstuy]

I'm an atheist but...

It seems to me that Christianity is a relatively monotheistic yet ultimately polytheistic religion.  And ultimately, the oldest traditions in Western culture are going to derive from other polytheistic traditions.  There isn't any reason to ruin eggnog or reindeer over that. 

Also, if you start deconstructing religious traditions like that, the Bible should give you a lot more questions about the birth of Jesus because it contradicts itself on when Jesus was born, whether he was born from a virgin and seems to be making up the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

How?

Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.  Herod died in 4 BC.  Luke 2:1: says that the reason Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem was to be taxed and says the taxing was first done by Quirinius.  Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD.  They can't both be right.

A lot of the scriptures say that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph (in order to establish that Jesus has messiah credentials).  If Joseph was not his father, Jesus is not descended from David.   

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'm an atheist but...

It seems to me that Christianity is a relatively monotheistic yet ultimately polytheistic religion.  And ultimately, the oldest traditions in Western culture are going to derive from other polytheistic traditions.  There isn't any reason to ruin eggnog or reindeer over that. 

Also, if you start deconstructing religious traditions like that, the Bible should give you a lot more questions about the birth of Jesus because it contradicts itself on when Jesus was born, whether he was born from a virgin and seems to be making up the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

How?

Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.  Herod died in 4 BC.  Luke 2:1: says that the reason Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem was to be taxed and says the taxing was first done by Quirinius.  Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD.  They can't both be right.

A lot of the scriptures say that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph (in order to establish that Jesus has messiah credentials).  If Joseph was not his father, Jesus is not descended from David.   

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

Have you considered that "Herod" may have referred to another Herod aside from Herod the Great?  There were several kings named Herod, after all.  And who is arguing that Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father?  The Romans didn't necessarily need to know that Joseph was a descendant of King David; Joseph probably knew himself (after all, David was such a hero to the Hebrews that it would have been a big deal, kind of like someone who is a descendant of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln today.)  And the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem matters because the Old Testament stated that the Messiah would be born there.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

The simplest explanation is that 'when' in 'when Quirinius was governor of Syria' can also be translated 'before', so as to distinguish this from the Quirinian Census. Actually, that's the second-simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that Luke got the census story wrong and they were in Bethlehem for some other reason.

[bedstuy]

I'm an atheist but...

It seems to me that Christianity is a relatively monotheistic yet ultimately polytheistic religion.  And ultimately, the oldest traditions in Western culture are going to derive from other polytheistic traditions.  There isn't any reason to ruin eggnog or reindeer over that. 

Also, if you start deconstructing religious traditions like that, the Bible should give you a lot more questions about the birth of Jesus because it contradicts itself on when Jesus was born, whether he was born from a virgin and seems to be making up the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem.

How?

Matthew 2:1 says that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.  Herod died in 4 BC.  Luke 2:1: says that the reason Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem was to be taxed and says the taxing was first done by Quirinius.  Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 AD.  They can't both be right.

A lot of the scriptures say that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph (in order to establish that Jesus has messiah credentials).  If Joseph was not his father, Jesus is not descended from David.   

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

Have you considered that "Herod" may have referred to another Herod aside from Herod the Great?  There were several kings named Herod, after all.  And who is arguing that Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father?  The Romans didn't necessarily need to know that Joseph was a descendant of King David; Joseph probably knew himself (after all, David was such a hero to the Hebrews that it would have been a big deal, kind of like someone who is a descendant of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln today.)  And the part about Jesus being born in Bethlehem matters because the Old Testament stated that the Messiah would be born there.

It's pretty clear that he's talking about Herod the Great.  I don't think there's any controversy about that. 

We must have a different definition of "father." 

And maybe Joseph knew he was descended from David (it would be harder back then to know for sure because records weren't kept as well as today).  But, why uproot his family for months in order to be counted in the census in a certain way?  And why did he go to the place David lived?  Why not his 50th great grandfather?  And seriously, the Romans would want you to be near your land and assets to tax you.  They wouldn't care about where your distant ancestors lived.  That doesn't make any sense.

And, yes, the reason it's important for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem is so he can be the messiah.  But, that's more reason to doubt this story.  The writers of the Gospels have ample reason to make stuff up to support their claims about Jesus.  They have a motive to lie and a story that doesn't add up. 

[DemPGH]

In short, this one really isn't up there very high on the list of regrets that I would point to. I think there are transgressions and sadistic abuses far in excess of the Latin Church superimposing holidays it made up on Pagan solstice and fertility celebrations. The Pagans and Christians brutalized each other for a few centuries till the Christians won, forced everyone within range of conquest to adopt their traditions, and then a few centuries later Protestants and Catholics started terrorizing and brutalizing each other, and anyone with a little knowledge knows this. I won't re-litigate it, but holy wars, conquests, the Inquisition, and the heresy stuff are far worse. So I don't think you should feel guilty about participating in your church's mode of worship because an ancient culture did something else on roughly the same day.

Now, I won't be focused too much, however, this Christmas on Christians, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, and their various sects, holy books, quarrels, and fights. So I might be the wrong one to comment.

I've got a couple decent bottles of Chianti, Cabernet, and Shiraz put back. The family will be getting together the night of the 24th and I'd guess about half will go to some Presbyterian or Methodist thing while the rest of us stay behind, drink the booze, and rehash the old days. For those of us younger, that's the 1980s. "Remember when Joe Montana threw all those touchdowns in the Super Bowl?" "Yeah, how about when Charlie Martin suplexed Jim McMahon long after the play was over back in '86 and knocked him out for the year?"

Shoot, I remember the days when Mike Ditka and Forrest Gregg would stand on their own sides of the fifty and yell swear words at each other. These days there would be fines and suspensions for doing that.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

With Christmas in a few days, I can't help but ask: do you think it's wrong for Christians to celebrate holidays like that that were adopted from pagan origins?  I especially wonder when you consider that Jesus probably wasn't born on December 25th.  Tell me what you think.  Also: since the Julian/Gregorian calendar didn't come into effect until after the Roman empire and the Catholic church, should Christians follow the Jewish calendar instead?  A guy from my church pointed to Daniel 7:25 as evidence of this (and of the changing of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday) and said that the Hebrew calendar was "God's calendar." 

The Julian Calendar was named after Julius Caesar, so that was already in use in Jesus' time.  Jews would have had to know it in order to interact with gentiles, though their own calendar was the one they followed for themselves. 

The Jewish calendar is based on the moon cycles, and so includes leap months in order to keep it somewhat in sync with the solar year.  Ironically for this topic, the Jews inherited this basic structure from the surrounding Mesopotamian cultures.  The Mesopotamians also gave us the zodiac, hours and minutes, and the week.  (The Hebrew innovation was in the sacredness of the seventh day.)

There's even a  month in the Jewish calendar named after a Mesopotamian god - Tammuz. He was a god of death and rebirth, who was sent to the underworld for half the year as a ransom for the goddess Ishtar.  Ezekiel disapproved the mourning rituals done on Tammuz's behalf in front of the Temple at Jerusalem. On the other hand, while there's a strong parallel with the Greek myth of Persephone, there's also a (very imperfect) parallel to the sacrifice of Christ to ransom the world.

C.S. Lewis, influenced by Chesterton and Tolkien, said that in the Gospel "myth become fact"; Christ is the historical and true fulfillment of all the hints and longings in the pagan myths.  If the Jewish prophets pointed toward the Messiah, maybe the bards and rites of the gentiles do in some sense as well.
For a real twist, consider this: the Church of the Nativity may be built on the site of an ancient shrine to that dying god Tammuz!  Even if that's not the actual site of Jesus' birth, I find that a fascinating connection. Could it be an instance of what Marshall Sahlins called the "structure of the conjuncture" ?  (Sorry if I'm losing you here.)

Anyway, my suggestion is to keep some of the old pagan (or pseudo-pagan) traditions, but dispense with some of the consumerism.  Sing some meaningful carols like the Holly and the Ivy instead of Winter Wonderland or Santa Clause is Coming to Town.  And even though the chance that it snowed copiously in Bethlehem on Jesus' birth is slim to none, In the Bleak Midwinter is still a great song.

[The Mikado]

Have you considered that "Herod" may have referred to another Herod aside from Herod the Great?  There were several kings named Herod, after all.

That doesn't fly.  The account of the flight into Egypt mentions that the family was afraid to return because Herod Archelaus (r. 4 BC-6 AD) had succeeded his old man as king and was just as fierce as Herod the Great had been.  It's pretty clear that the king in the start of the story is Herod the Great.

EDIT:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ingemann]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

[bedstuy]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

It still doesn't make sense that you would have to go to where your distant ancestors lived for the purpose of being taxed or counted in a census. 

[ingemann]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

It still doesn't make sense that you would have to go to where your distant ancestors lived for the purpose of being taxed or counted in a census. 

That´s so ...American, you don´t get it because your home is relative newly conquered, your bloodlines are relative small, but for old worlders, especially for the once of the past, they had a connection with the home area which lasted for many generations. This was simply because much of their bloodline lived in that area, and they often married relatives, and they served as a social security net. Nazareth was a Jewish colony in the middle of less than friendly area populated by Greeks, Phoexians and Sarmatians, for the Jews of suuch place itt made perfect sense to keep a strong connection to their old villages and to their bloodlines.

You can see example among other old worlders today, in Greece you have to travel to your home village to vote, my own dad in Denmark was welcomed in some areas, which was rather unwelcoming to outsiders, simply because he were related to them.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

It still doesn't make sense that you would have to go to where your distant ancestors lived for the purpose of being taxed or counted in a census. 

Mary was clearly Galilean but there's a lack of clarity as to whether Joseph himself was originally from Nazareth or Bethlehem, although Luke has him living in Nazareth at the time and both infancy narratives obviously have them settling there afterwards. It might not have just been his ancestors, and even if it was they might have been in Bethlehem relatively recently for all we know of Joseph's family situation prior to his engagement.

[bedstuy]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

It still doesn't make sense that you would have to go to where your distant ancestors lived for the purpose of being taxed or counted in a census. 

Mary was clearly Galilean but there's a lack of clarity as to whether Joseph himself was originally from Nazareth or Bethlehem, although Luke has him living in Nazareth at the time and both infancy narratives obviously have them settling there afterwards. It might not have just been his ancestors, and even if it was they might have been in Bethlehem relatively recently for all we know of Joseph's family situation prior to his engagement.

Maybe.  The simplest explanation in my mind is that Jesus was born in Nazareth and these writers who had no first-hand knowledge just made up the Bethlehem story to jibe with the Old Testament.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

It still doesn't make sense that you would have to go to where your distant ancestors lived for the purpose of being taxed or counted in a census. 

Mary was clearly Galilean but there's a lack of clarity as to whether Joseph himself was originally from Nazareth or Bethlehem, although Luke has him living in Nazareth at the time and both infancy narratives obviously have them settling there afterwards. It might not have just been his ancestors, and even if it was they might have been in Bethlehem relatively recently for all we know of Joseph's family situation prior to his engagement.

Matthew suggests that Joseph was from Bethlehem, since the magi came to visit them there at their house.  The one thing that seems out of place with Luke on that is why they would have to stay at an inn when they came there, instead of staying with family - though maybe Joseph's family didn't trust Mary due to her unexplained pregnancy.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Luke 2 says the Joseph was from Nazareth but had to go to Bethlehem because the tax required everyone to go to their "own city."  The only reason he supposedly goes to Bethlehem is that Joseph knows that like 40 generations back his Great grandfather was David.  How did he know that his great-great-et al grandfather 40 generations back was David?  How did the Romans know?  Why would they care for purposes of taxing people?  That whole story just doesn't make any sense.  I don't think people really cared about where Jesus was born way back then.

To be descendent of David was prestigeous, and he knew it in the same way that many Muslim today know they descend from Muhammed. So while the story about travelling to Bethlehem was likelly made up by Markus, iit make sense in context. As for Joseph ancestory it´s important as it fit into the Greek tradition of an earthly father and an divine father at the same time.

It still doesn't make sense that you would have to go to where your distant ancestors lived for the purpose of being taxed or counted in a census. 

Mary was clearly Galilean but there's a lack of clarity as to whether Joseph himself was originally from Nazareth or Bethlehem, although Luke has him living in Nazareth at the time and both infancy narratives obviously have them settling there afterwards. It might not have just been his ancestors, and even if it was they might have been in Bethlehem relatively recently for all we know of Joseph's family situation prior to his engagement.

Matthew suggests that Joseph was from Bethlehem, since the magi came to visit them there at their house.  The one thing that seems out of place with Luke on that is why they would have to stay at an inn when they came there, instead of staying with family - though maybe Joseph's family didn't trust Mary due to her unexplained pregnancy.

Makes sense. I, shameful as it is since we know the whole story, might not have either. Perhaps they took compassion once she actually had the child and still had nowhere to stay.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The one thing that seems out of place with Luke on that is why they would have to stay at an inn when they came there, instead of staying with family - though maybe Joseph's family didn't trust Mary due to her unexplained pregnancy.

The natal narrative in Luke 2:1-21 serves to symbolize that Jesus is the lamb of God who will later be sacrificed to atone for our sins.  That is why Luke has him born amidst domesticated animals and has angels announcing his birth to shepherds.