Is Halloween evil?

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is not up to me to give a source for a negative. It is rather up to the person making the positive claim, that there was originally a pagan holiday that was on December 25, PRIOR to the celebration of Christmas, and to give a valid historical website for it (not blog site or quasi historical site).

You could just do some Googling yourself instead of waiting for others to give you links.
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/saturnalia

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oh Bede would have known about his own culture, since the conversion of the angles was still going on within his lifetime. His parents or grandparents may well have been pagan, but he obviously rebelled against their traditions. In any case, he surely heard about such traditions from his own elders in his lifetime.

Bede is known to have been wrong on more than one item. He did the best he could do with what he had, and we are indebted to him. But we have to consider earlier sources, which are more reliable.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You could just do some Googling yourself instead of waiting for others to give you links.
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-rome/saturnalia

I actually do quite a bit of googling, but its not what I come in here to do. I come in here to read posts.

If you make a positive remark, it is up to you to prove your point. It is not up to me to check out whether your point is true or not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And about a dozen other gods like zoraster and mithra right. And since your tying all that into Jewish tradition for some reason, how and why? You surely have no motivation to say that all of this has direct links to Jewish tradition, I'm failing to understand that.

No. The idea that mithra was born on Dec 25 came AFTER Christians had already reserved the day. And even that is spurious.

It is often stated that Mithras was thought to have been born on December 25. But Beck states that this is not the case. In fact he calls this assertion "that hoariest of 'facts'". He continues: "In truth, the only evidence for it is the celebration of the birthday of Invictus on that date in Calendar of Philocalus.

Mithraism in comparison with other belief systems - Wikipedia​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is not your usual informative responses.

Because, my friend, it is common knowledge that the Old Paganism died out. That's why the New Paganism is called Neo-Paganism. There was no one to teach the old ways to this generation. They got information out of books and made up new ceremonies out of whole cloth. Furthermore, they simply don't share the same beliefs as the believers of old -- for example, Neo-Pagans do not actually believe that magick spells work every time without fail. In the old days, magick was science -- you did it, it worked.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Whether considered a holiday or not the time of the winter solstice so close to December 25 has more than enough support from archeology that that time was symbolic and of great importance to the pre-Christian cultures. Examples can be given.

Now you are changing the goal posts. You are not sticking with December 25, but are changing it to that general time.

Come on, Christians can have holy days in the near vacinity and it not be related to paganism. Pagans don't own the calendar. It's like saying that Pagans have harvest festivals, so everyone that has a harvest festival must be a pagan, or indeed everyone that has a festival in the Fall must be a Pagan. It's just ridiculously illogical.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

n. They got information out of books and made up new ceremonies out of whole cloth.

I think maybe you have very little faith in cultures to retain things, I don't know why. Speaking to a point Wild Fox was starting to make, why should similar folk concepts even appear in different Celtic languages? Like if Merlin appears in irish gaelic and welsh folk tales, there is no logical reason how he would spontaneously appear in both languages. Unless, maybe the Merlin concept goes way deep in time as a Celtic cultural memory. Same goes for plenty of the gods and folk traditions, why would they appear in different celtic languages? Just what have you read on this? I mean I took the time to study the bible a bit so as not to be ignorant of where different traditions are coming from. I'm not sure if you're doing me the same favor.

I study British folk songs by the way. Why would there be consistency in the clearly pagan elements, and different magic spells occurring all of the over the place in wildly different songs, regions apart? A lot of these folk songs are vastly long, and I'm recording a whole book of them. What's the point of them being that long, other than to carry some seriously heavy duty cultural memories?

. Furthermore, they simply don't share the same beliefs as the believers of old -- for example, Neo-Pagans do not actually believe that magick spells work every time without fail. In the old days, magick was science -- you did it, it worked.

You'd have to read through the Tuatha Dé Danann and read some ancient history to even get a sense of how magic worked. Celtic magic, at least, could fail. That's because doing it was complicated and hard.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Pagans don't own the calendar.

Where do you think the names for the days of the week in this language came from? Why in the world, by your logic, would the clear paganism survive in the way we have our days named? You know the word 'month' also is a pagan word, comes from a germanic moon god. Why didn't Christians change that? So just maybe, if those things survived as they did, our folk material (of many kinds) would have relevant pagan information as well.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I actually do quite a bit of googling, but its not what I come in here to do. I come in here to read posts.

If you make a positive remark, it is up to you to prove your point. It is not up to me to check out whether your point is true or not.

I've proved it enough to you. This is basic stuff that I've posted links to. You haven't cited anything. Just a lot of ignorant nay-saying for an unknown reason.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think maybe you have very little faith in cultures to retain things

And you don't understand how it only takes a couple hundred years for things to die out. For example, we no longer have gentlemen's duels or wife selling as a form of divorce.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Where do you think the names for the days of the week in this language came from? Why in the world, by your logic, would the clear paganism survive in the way we have our days named? You know the word 'month' also is a pagan word, comes from a germanic moon god. Why didn't Christians change that? So just maybe, if those things survived as they did, our folk material (of many kinds) would have relevant pagan information as well.

You think because we say Wednesday (Woden's Day) that this means pagans own the calendar? Oh puhleeze. That's completely irrational. That's like saying if I wear a witch costume on Halloween I must be a real witch.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've proved it enough to you. This is basic stuff that I've posted links to. You haven't cited anything. Just a lot of ignorant nay-saying for an unknown reason.

You are the one making the positive statement that the holiday is pagan. That means you are the one with the obligation of proof. And no, you haven't proven anything. Supplying a link is NOT proof.
1) you have to quote, or at least summarize from the link, and THEN give the link (so that it can be checked that you aren't just making it up.
2) these quotations have to be linked by your own words into coherent arguments.
3) the quotes have to actually prove your point; they can't be irrelevant or tangential.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You think because we say Wednesday (Woden's Day) that this means pagans own the calendar? Oh puhleeze. That's completely irrational. That's like saying if I wear a witch costume on Halloween I must be a real witch.

You said things only last a couple hundred years, but all the days of the week are named for pagan gods, so why did that last till now?

Does it it make you a little pagan to call today Wednesday? Hm, maybe. By identifying it as wednesday, aren't you tacitly genuflecting to a foreign god just a little bit? Or by wearing a Halloween costume, that may cross a certain spiritual boundary as well if you think about it

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You are the one making the positive statement that the holiday is pagan. That means you are the one with the obligation of proof. And no, you haven't proven anything. Supplying a link is NOT proof.
1) you have to quote, or at least summarize from the link, and THEN give the link (so that it can be checked that you aren't just making it up.
2) these quotations have to be linked by your own words into coherent arguments.
3) the quotes have to actually prove your point; they can't be irrelevant or tangential.

I didn't say Halloween was Pagan. Or rather, it's not only Pagan. I said that trick or treating and jack-o'-lanterns stem from ancient traditions. Stop putting words in my mouth. You haven't done anything to prove your argument. You just dismiss everything people are saying to you here. You have been presented with more than enough sources. Your mind is made up and you just don't want to listen. This is a waste of time.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You said things only last a couple hundred years, but all the days of the week are named for pagan gods, so why did that last till now?

Does it it make you a little pagan to call today Wednesday? Hm, maybe. By identifying it as wednesday, aren't you tacitly genuflecting to a foreign god just a little bit? Or by wearing a Halloween costume, that may cross a certain spiritual boundary as well if you think about it

I didn't say ALL things only last a couple hundred years. I said it was possible for substantial things (as in some substantial things) to die out in a couple hundred years.

My metaphor of the halloween costume was to try and show you how you are using superficial things to try and identify things of substance. IOW the names of the days of the week are simply a superficial title. They do not imply any devotion to the pagan gods they name. This should have been as obvious to you as the fact that wearing a witch costume doesn't make me a witch.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I didn't say ALL things only last a couple hundred years. I said it was possible for substantial things (as in some substantial things) to die out in a couple hundred years.

You couldn't possibly say a vaguer statement than that

My metaphor of the halloween costume was to try and show you how you are using superficial things to try and identify things of substance. IOW the names of the days of the week are simply a superficial title. They do not imply any devotion to the pagan gods they name. This should have been as obvious to you as the fact that wearing a witch costume doesn't make me a witch.

Now I think you're getting a little Pauline, oddly enough.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You couldn't possibly say a vaguer statement than that



Now I think you're getting a little Pauline, oddly enough.

I'm not vague. I have a degree in composition. There is a difference in making an absolute statement that something is always true and making a statement that something CAN happen. Please go back and read it again. If you still have a question, then go ahead and ask me, and I'll try to reword it for you.

Paul hardly has a monopoly on pointing out superficiality.

 

[Callisto]

It is not up to me to give a source for a negative. It is rather up to the person making the positive claim, that there was originally a pagan holiday that was on December 25, PRIOR to the celebration of Christmas, and to give a valid historical website for it (not blog site or quasi historical site).

It is up to you to support your assertions. Period. I suggest you try researching for a change. Hint: try Sol Invictus.

Verify your claim.

 

[Callisto]

Simply read teh Christian writings. For example, Matthew 5:16: "In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven."

This does not erase not disprove the archaeological and historical evidence previously cited. Try again.

 

[Callisto]

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus diedc was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar.9 March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception.10 Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.d

This idea appears in 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.

Augustine, too, was familiar with this association. In On the Trinity (c. 399–419) he writes: “For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.
Augustine, Sermon 202.

How December 25 Became Christmas​

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus diedc was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar.9 March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception.10 Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.d

This idea appears in 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.

Augustine, too, was familiar with this association. In On the Trinity (c. 399–419) he writes: “For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.
Augustine, Sermon 202.

How December 25 Became Christmas​

Funny, when I cited this website, you called it spurious. Now you're using it? So, which is it - spurious or reliable?

Secondly, the article explores one of the various theories of the early church as the purpose is to examine Dec. 25, which does not predate others. Nor does it change what I said previously.

And note, it contradicts your insistence there was no pagan festival in December 25. Note:

"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."