When December 25th was first established as the date for Christmas, did those who did so say “Jesus was born on December 25,” or “We don’t know what date Jesus was born on, so let’s celebrate it on December 25”?
Some of both.
By “liberal Christian”, I meant doctrinally liberal, not politically- more like the 19th century Unitarians & the 20th century demytholigizers. While the mainstream “liberal” Protestant denominations still affirm both the Virgin Birth & the Essential Unique Divine Sonship of Christ, there’s not a big rush from the hierarchies to denounce clerics who deny those doctrines.
The squirrels were hard at work on the ‘logic’ behind setting that date, but here goes. I am here recounting what I understand to be historical fact regarding the reasoning, not attempting to propound or defend it as da truth.
Jesus was crucified and gave up the ghost on March 25, so it was claimed. Because God is perfect, he must have done this for good reason. Obviously, the date was chosen because it was the completion of something – and he was 33 years of age. His ministry lasted three years, he was 30 years of age when he began it, so 33 is the case. Well, perfection requires that it must have been exactly 33 years between his conception and his crucifixion. Exactly.
Therefore, the logic goes, he was conceived on March 25, which is therefore the date of the Annunciation, when Gabriel showed up and told Mary that he was with child by the Holy Spirit. And, of course, if this is the case, then he was born nine months later, or on December 25.
This is a very convenient date, because it is the first day on which the daylight grows perceptibly longer than the day before – a useful Symbolism of the Light of the World coming into it. And it falls on or convincingly close to the feasts of Sol Invictus nd Saturnalia, which means that the traditional pagan celebration customs can be syncretized into the new Christian one.
And it’s that last bit that says it all.
Not the “reason” preceding it.
No, it does not “say it all”. While I think the “reason” is far-reaching, it’s not beyond reason to think that the Dec 25 birth is accurate & the “reason” was invented to explain it.
Another bit of reasoning given- supposedly Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, was doing his priestly service during the Fall Festivals (beginning around Sept 25)
when he Gabriel told him that he would father John & struck him mute for his doubt. Being mute, he was ritually unable to serve as priest & went home to presumably get busy on siring John. Six months later (Mar. 25), Gabriel announced to Mary that she’d bear the Messiah and nine month later… ta da! Christmas!
Funny thing- the anti-Dec 25 folk usually come up with Zachariah serving in June around Pentecost, John conceived later in the month, and Mary’s annunciation being six months later in… late December! And this explanation often comes from groups that DON’T celebrate Christmas (usually Armstrongist churches).
I do not think Christianity can be called plagiarisation any more than any religion; religion is an evolution of thought, each religion branched out of another way of thinking. Men started out one way of thinking and has evolved into the many religions that exist today, some were dropped others were expanded upon, some
were changed a little, some a lot.
You do realize that pregnancies don’t really last *exactly *9 months to the day, hour, and second from conception, right ?
In fact, the average length of a human pregnancy is 38 weeks (so 266 days, 8.7 solar months or 9,5 lunar ones*), the normal spread being 37-42 (between 8,5 and 9.64 solar months, 9.25-10.5 lunar ones). The world record is apparently 375 days, which must have sucked mightily for the poor woman.
ETA : BTW, could a mod correct the thread title ? It’s been bugging me to no end. Everytime the thread is bumped, I get the urge to go all Willem Dafoe on the OP - “I believe the word you’re looking for is plagiaRISM, is Christianity a plagiaRISM”
Most Quakers I know, myself included, don’t really see this as something important or worth wasting thought on. Jesus’ son-of-god-ness is completely tangential to anything actually relevant. If God spoke to me and told me “Hey, actually this whole virgin birth thing is how I roll, so quit with the :rolleyes: already” it would phase me not a bit, whereas a command “thou shalt kill” would leave me more than a bit troubled.