Why do Christians celebrate Christmas*?

Great Debates
81

Your honor, I would like permission to treat watchwolf as a hostile witness, because I believe he is being disingenuous.

I can see that you will stop at nothing to learn the truth. First I have to tell you where to find the most famous story in the world, and now I have to spoon-feed you the verses so you can connect two dots.

Luke 1 (mea culpa, I should have told you that Joseph is also mentioned in chapter 1) introduces (v 26-7) Mary and Joseph as residents of Nazareth, and says that Joseph is of the House of David (and incidentally, Luke attempts to document this in chapter 3, giving a genealogy for which 2000 years of diligent scholarship has been unable to find a shred of verification, that differs with the other genealogy of Jesus from Matthew 1 in almost every name between Solomon and Joseph, and that most secular scholars think was invented).

Luke 2:39 makes it explicit that Nazareth is their home: “39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth.” If you read the preceding verses, you will see that Luke is talking about the period six weeks (the length of a woman’s “purification” after bearing a son) after Jesus was born, right after he was presented in the Temple. So Nazareth was clearly their home before Jesus was born, contradicting Matthew.

So why did Joseph have to go to Bethlehem? You gave up your tireless search for the truth just one verse early; you quoted Luke 2:3, but all you had to do was read Luke 2:4 – “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (***because he was of the house and lineage of David)”

Emphasis mine.

Lest you think that I cherry-picked the now deprecated King James version because it is favorable to my case, here are a few dozen other translations of that verse, from almost every published Bible in English:

Again, in case you forgot, David lived a full 1000 years before Joseph.

And just in case it needs to be explained, I’m not claiming that Augustus ordered this insanity, Luke is. I honestly don’t see how anyone could believe it. You said all this seems plausible because you have to file an out of state tax return. Tell me, suppose President Hillary tears up the constitution, as we all know she will, and gives the UN full authority over the US, and they require you to file your tax return in the city where your ancestors lived 1000 years ago. Would you have any idea where that is? I have the intertubes and the google machine and all that stuff, and I can’t trace either side of my family back past the 19th century.

Although I’m pretty sure I’m descended from Thor.

82

Too late to edit, but here’s the one I would have chosen if I were cherry-picking:

“About that time Caesar Augustus ordered a census to be taken throughout the Empire. This was the first census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Everyone had to travel to his own ancestral hometown to be accounted for. So Joseph went from the Galilean town of Nazareth up to Bethlehem in Judah, David’s town, for the census. As a descendant of David, he had to go there. He went with Mary, his fiancée, who was pregnant.”

83

It still doesn’t say Augustus ordered people back to the cities their ancestors lived 1,000 year ago … you can say it does all you want to … but it doesn’t …

You know … the Star of Bethlehem leading the three wise men violates fewer laws of nature than the Virgin Birth does … the context of this tale seems to have eluded you …

84

Actually, that’s not the case, though some modern Christians might like to believe it.

The bishop of Antioch, St John Chrysostom, states quite clearly in a sermon written in 386 that Christmas originated from the celebration of Sol Invictus:

“On this day [Dec 25] the birthday of Christ was also lately fixed at Rome, in order that while the heathen were busy with their profane ceremonies, Christians might perform their sacred rites undisturbed. They call it the Birthday of the Invincible One, but who is so invincible as our Lord? Or if they say it is the Birthday of the Sun, Christ is the Sun of Righteousness.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia actually has quite a good article about the origin of Christmas.

85

It makes it clear that Joseph was required to do so. If your theory is that Augustus singled out some carpenter from Nazareth for special treatment, then you stick to your guns, and I’m sure you’ll be admired for it. But IMO I’ve given enough evidence for any open-minded person.

No, it doesn’t. Parthenogenesis has been induced in mammals, but no stars have ever been known to float along at the pace of walking men, and then stop over a particular house.

By the way, the Bible doesn’t say there were three wise men. You can say it does all you want, but it doesn’t. Don’t you enjoy this level of nitpicking?

Besides, the relative probability is irrelevant, because I don’t believe in the Star, I don’t believe in the Virgin Birth, I don’t believe in the zombie invasion of Jerusalem, and I don’t believe in any of the other miracle tales in the Bible, no matter how many anonymous and contradictory accounts of them there are.

There, I told you where I’m coming from. Will you do the same? Are you trying to tell me that you are completely objective about the Bible?

Whatever you say.

86

TonySinclair, I’m not arguing that any previous bibles were translated improperly, I’m arguing that they’re being interpreted improperly. Let’s stick with the King James Version, as that’s generally (in my view) the best:

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.”

Again, Luke does not say that Jesus was born in the reign of Quirinius. He says that 1) Jesus was born in the year that a taxation-related census was ordered by Augustus, 2) The actual census was carried out under Quirinius. There is no reason to believe that these two things happened at the same time. It’s perfectly reasonable that something happened to abort the census in between the two events.

Here’s a plausible explanation of what might have happened, which also addresses your criticism that “Augustus didn’t have the right to tax Judaea, Herod did”:

We know from Josephus that Herod temporarily fell out of favour with Augustus, and had his status downgraded from a client king to a subject, sometime around 8-9 BC. he was restored to favour about a year later and regained his status. We also know that based on the frequency of Roman taxation, a census would be do around 9 BC. It’s plausible that since Herod was temporarily in disfavor and his client status was in question, Augustus ordered a census in the region, that the census was aborted once Herod returned to favour, and that the census was finally carried out about 14 years later under Quirinius.

This would incidentally mean that Luke was wrong about the age of Jesus in 28-29 AD (he would have been 36, not ‘around 30’), but I can believe that more easily than Luke being wrong about the census.

There are also lots of other reasons why Joseph might have gone to Bethlehem to be registered rather than to his home in Galilee, that don’t revolve around the “return to your ancestors 1000 years earlier” thing. Maybe he was traveling or working in Judaea and that was the nearest town. Maybe he had some property in Judaea. Maybe he had been born there and had moved to Galilee as an adult. There are lots of plausible reasons.

Here’s Nicoll and Hall from 1897, arguing more or less the same point that I did:

Here’s Fasti Sacri, A Chronology of the New Testament by Lewin, arguing for the same ‘aborted census’ theory (and also the possibility that Quirinius may have had a quasi-official role in Syria somewhat earlier):

87

:rolleyes: We both know I meant ‘prophets’, it was late.

That distinction is easy drawn by adults, even ones who believe in the divinity of Jesus. To a child’s mind they are the same thing, my OP asked why parents who believe one thing as fact engage in teaching their children something very similar they have every intention of dispelling later.

88

TonySinclair, here’s one link I really like, from Timothy McGrew, philosophy professor at Western Michigan University. He introduces the objections to the ‘census of Quririnius’ at about minute 8:00, and goes on to talk about it until about 25:00, presenting both the possible arguments I’ve made (he plumps for the ‘aborted census’ theory).

89

Actually the wording is “But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the ‘Birthday of the Unconquered’. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice.”

He is just remarking that it is a nice coincidence. Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage had already set the date. However it was just a feast date, one of many. No major celebrations, no gift giving, nothing. As I said "Saturnalia and Sol Invitus were long dead before Christmas became a big holiday."

You also have to remember that Mitraism was but a flash in the pan, from about 274AD to 325 AD, with a few secret cults before that.

90

The NT says nothing of the sort. The Wise men saw the start, the star fortold. The wise men went to Jerusalem, and were directed to Bethlehem, where they “searched carefully”’

Yes, “and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” but that’s exactly what stars seem to do if you are heading in a direction. Try going toward Venus sometime.

91

So, are you withdrawing your earlier claim “that Augustus Caesar decreed a worldwide (or even empire-wide) census that required people to travel to the cities where their ancestors lived a thousand years before”?

If it’s just Joseph who was sent to his ancestorial home, then it’s not clear why this should be so improbable … it was less than a hundred miles … and well known, Abraham sacrificed that goat right there in Jerusalem …

You should read your citations before you base your claims upon them … “There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild” … besides that, the laws of nature demand such offspring be female … a far far more common claim is that it came from a toilet seat, I believe the Romans had invented toilets by this time …

My position here is that there’s nothing inherently wrong with Christians celebrating Christmas nor participating in the secular festivities. I’m fully aware of your position, and it stands quite well even when we remove the unsubstantiated claims. What I’m not clear on is how this connects to OP, sounds like you’re advocating no one celebrates Christmas for any reason.

Do me a favor, please celebrate today’s holiday … All Saints Day, Nov 1st … go to your local grocery store and start buying 50% off bags of candy … you won’t burn in hell I promise, but if don’t brush your teeth, you will burn in the dentist’s chair …

92

No, we are not. Easter is on the Sunday of the first full moon after the spring equinox, and takes its very name from the pagan celebration of Ostara

93

It does take it’s name from Ēostre, but nothing else.

wiki:

*The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the term is that it is derived from the name of a goddess mentioned by the 7th to 8th-century English monk Bede, who wrote that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English ‘Month of Ēostre’, translated in Bede’s time as “Paschal month”) was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says “was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month”.[22] However, it is possible that Bede was only speculating about the origin of the term since there is no firm evidence that such a goddess actually existed.[23]
*

That one line is* exactly everything* we know about Ēostre. Or Ostara (before Neopagan times)

And he wrote that about 700 years after Christ died.

Easter has been a major celebration of Christianity since before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Yes, the original date of Easter is connected to Passover. Passover may indeed be "connected to the offering of the “first-fruits of the barley”, barley being the first grain to ripen and to be harvested in the Land of Israel." It dates back to at least the seventh century BC .

94

Siriusly? You’ve seen stars that you are walking toward stop appearing to recede, and remain standing directly over a point you’re approaching?

I’m amazed that an atheist has to explain this to a Christian, but the Star of Bethlehem was a miracle. Stars don’t start and stop and point out a single house, people don’t walk on water, and zombies don’t come out of tombs, unless some supernatural power is involved.

If someone wants to believe the story as a matter of faith, that’s his business. But saying it could have been a natural phenomenon is like saying that Jesus’ alleged ascension into heaven was caused by a strong thermal updraft. It doesn’t help people of faith in any way, and it makes skeptics think you’re desperate. At best.

95

Look, we’re clearly not going to change each others’ minds. I’ve already acknowledged that apologists have been able to come up with scenarios that are not completely impossible, and some of them are quite clever. But it’s a waste of time. You’re not going to convince anyone (who doesn’t already believe) that the stories are true, with arguments whose common refrain is, “It’s not impossible that…”.

As I just said to the other fellow, if you believe the story is true, then you might as well just assume that God did whatever necessary to make it true, at least locally. Just like he somehow got all millions of species of animals to Noah, and made them fit in the Ark. Just like he negated the effects of inertia when he made the earth stop spinning so Joshua had more daylight to kill his enemies.

Or you can take the approach of Christians who consider themselves sophisticated, and say that the story was never intended to be historically accurate; it represents a higher truth.

96

Thanks for the link, and it was very courteous of you to give the timestamp of the part under discussion.

97

Yes, I have observed this. It is well known.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/24-ufo-no-its-venus
*Roy Craig’s riveting book UFOs: An Insider’s View of the Official Quest for Evidence, about his investigations for the U.S. Air Force’s Colorado Project, includes an account of veteran police officers in Georgia chasing a mysterious, fast-moving object “about 500 feet above the ground.” Yep, it was Venus. *

http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/Venusufo.htm
*The apparent pursuit of moving vehicles, or flight from them, is characteristic of any distant object which is imagined to be close to the observer. Because of the object’s great distance, it remains essentially the same direction from the observer as the observer moves. Because of the object’s great distance, it remains essentially the same direction from the observer as the observer moves. Compared with trees or terrain nearby which change in direction as the observer moves past them, the object, retaining a constant direction, does seem to be moving the same speed and direction as any observer who thinks it no more distant than the reference terrain…It is a characteristic of this “pursuit” that the object stops when the observer stops, resumes its motion as the observer resumes motion, goes the opposite direction when the observer reverses direction, and travels at whatever speed the observer happens to travel. (Craig 47) *

There are many scientific explanations for the Star.

*Astronomer Michael R. Molnar argues that the “star in the east” refers to an astronomical event with astrological significance in the context of ancient Greek astrology.[67] He suggests a link between the Star of Bethlehem and a double occultation of Jupiter by the moon on March 20 and April 17 of 6 BC in Aries, particularly the second occultation on April 17.[68][69] Occultations of planets by the moon are quite common, but Firmicus Maternus, an astrologer to Roman Emperor Constantine, wrote that an occultation of Jupiter in Aries was a sign of the birth of a divine king.[68][70] He argues that Aries rather than Pisces was the zodiac symbol for Judea, a fact that would affect previous interpretations of astrological material. Molnar’s theory was debated by scientists, theologians, and historians during a colloquium on the Star of Bethlehem at the Netherlands’ University of Groningen in October 2014. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich supports Molnar’s explanation but noted technical questions.[71] “The gospel story is one in which King Herod was taken by surprise,” said Gingerich. “So it wasn’t that there was suddenly a brilliant new star sitting there that anybody could have seen [but] something more subtle.”[71] Astronomer David A. Weintraub says, “If Matthew’s wise men actually undertook a journey to search for a newborn king, the bright star didn’t guide them; it only told them when to set out.”[67]
*
Lazarus? You do know that until modern medicine, it was not unusual for a dead person to get back up. Hell it even happens today.

And about that dating:
However, there is some debate among Bible translators about the correct reading of Luke 2:2.[112] Instead of translating the registration as taking place “when” Quirinius was governor of Syria, some versions translate it as “before”[113][114] or use “before” as an alternative,[115][116][117] which Harold Hoehner, F.F. Bruce, Ben Witherington and others have suggested may be the correct translation.[118] While not in agreement, Emil Schürer also acknowledged that such a translation can be justified grammatically.[119] According to Josephus, the tax census conducted by the Roman senator Quirinius particularly irritated the Jews, and was one of the causes of the Zealot movement of armed resistance to Rome.[120] From this perspective, Luke may have been trying to differentiate the census at the time of Jesus’ birth from the tax census mentioned in Acts 5:37[121] that took place under Quirinius at a later time

98

Easter may take its name in English from a conjectured goddess, Eostre. German Ostern seems to take its name from the word for dawn and there is conjecture that English does likewise. However, many languages refer to it as Pascha/[symbol]Pasca[/symbol] (Greek), Pascha (Latin), Paques (French), Pasen (Dutch), Pasqua (Italian), Pascua (Spanish), and so on. Even the Old English name, (based, perhaps on a reference to the month), was a replacement for earlier Latin-based Pascan and Pasches.

And while I recognize that the vernal equinox is used in determining the date of Easter, it should be noted that Easter may fall as late as nearly a month following that equinox, (if the full moon falls the day before the equinox) and that the “equinox” used to calculate Easter is not the equinox of astronomers, (although it usually coincides for the purposes of calculating the date), but based on using March 21 as the equinox, regardless of the astronomical equinox. (The naming/numbering of the days that differ between the Gregorian and Julian calendars further clouds the matter for Western and Eastern Rite Christians.)

Passover originally had an even trickier calculation that required the Sanhedrin to determine whether the lunar year needed a leap month of second Adar in order to get Nissan, the month of Passover, to the proper position in the year. With the loss of the Sanhedrin, a calendar was developed with a nineteen year cycle that included seven leap years.

In both cases, the equinox figured into the calculations, but they were not “hijacks” of the vernal equinox as originally posted by Quartz.

99

I completely agree with this, by the way. If it happened, it was a miracle. I think it did, you think it didn’t, but we can certainly both agree that the attempt to split the difference by saying “the weird events in the Christian texts happened, but they were naturalistic” doesn’t really accomplish much for either side.

100

No, it’s not. It’s taking the more nuanced view that the text is based on a true story. It is recognizing that the author himself didn’t notice any discrepancies, so any inter-textual ones must be explainable.

All the text describes is that some astrologers saw a celestial object that they interpreted as leading them to Jerusalem for a new “King of the Jews.” And that, after they asked about and found out about Bethlehem, they saw what they believed to be the same celestial object, which arrived before they did, apparently pointing out the specific house where Jesus was.

There aremany, many interpretations of what actually happened given that text, even by people who are not themselves Christians. Yes, including the one that it is merely pious fiction.

And I have no intention of convincing some skeptic that it happened. I merely deny your specific claim that what was described is astrologically impossible. This sort of literalism that finds one interpretation and says it’s either all true or all false is anathema to me.

And, yes, I’m fine if some think it was a genuine miracle. It isn’t really described as such, in my opinion, but I can see people reading it as one.