• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Xmas celebration: There is no Christian command from Jesus nor God. Who, when, why?

Since Jesus Christ, at no time in his life, advocated the celebration of his birth, and only commanded remembrance of his death and resurrection, who, when, and why do we do so today?

In fact, xmas (CHRISTmas) has turned into a ritual of self indulgence, excess of drinking, buying things of more worthlessness than usefulness, pandering to commercialism, and creating a great deal of monetary debt.

It has now even become a time for ‘celebrating’ Pets, creatures, things…! Worshipping the Golden Calf of contemporaryism!!

But be that as it may!

When did Xmas first start (St Nicholas in Norway thinking to give presents to the poor children who otherwise received nothing but a stick of candy (luxury!)?)

How did it catch on (Pepsi cola?)?

Why has it strayed so far the Christian intention?
I believe its a catholic ideal. Just like depicting Jesus as white man with long blonde hair. I do not celebrate Christmas either for Santa or even for Jesus. Because everyday is a Jesus filled Christmas celebration for the true believer. Its hypocrisy to only go to church on easter and christmas. Both with origin pagan ideals.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
I attended a Friends meeting for a while and we had a pagan attendee who celebrated the winter solstice but not Christmas. I never went to one of his solstice parties because the solstice is meaningless to me.

Well, it's interesting in a physical kind of way, but I personally don't think it has any spiritual significance.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
@Soapy

My understanding is that teh apostles ordained deacons, presbyters, and bishops to succeed them. They chose men the believed they could trust to reliably teach the gospel. Remember that in the early centuries there was no New Testament. Christians relied utterly on the bishop making sure things were properly transmitted orally.

Once you agree that the bishops had such authority, it only makes sense that you are going to follow what the bishops determined in terms of new practices, such as replacing a Saturday Sabbath with a Sunday Lord's day, or celebrating Resurrection Sunday. Adding a feast of the Nativity fits in this box.

This, btw, is not a whole lot different from teh Jewish tradition out of which the church grew. As Jews, we understand there is no such thing as Torah without Oral Torah. The rabbis have every right to declare a new holy day for us, such as Chanukah.

I realize you completely reject this manner of thought. My goal here has not been to persuade you, but simply to explain how it goes, so that you can understand why i.e. Christmas exists.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
Why has it strayed so far the Christian intention?

I don't think the religious aspect of Christmas as a holy day has strayed. True there is nothing in Scripture about celebrating births and the exact month of His birth is not known, nor is it important to know. A better question why Christmas is celebrated the world over by non-religious. What for them is the 'spirit of Christmas' that draws them together to celebrate?
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
Nothing to do with Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, Mithras, Norse paganism, Constantine or whatever common internet tropes that are often proposed as its origin.

"Nothing" is too extreme. Especially considering that even without unbiased written sources, the inspirations for the customs that have become Christmas that aren't directly connected to Christianity appear to come from a common human source: The need for celebration and coming together during a difficult time of year. I suspect many of the things that make Christmas a meaningful holiday (even in the secular culture)--the feasting, resting, gathering together, gifting, singing, and lighting--are supernormal stimuli for instinctual drives to maintain human social bonds and survive a harsh environment.

These are also likely the source of religion: cultural artifacts practiced widely as a tool for maintaining social cohesion. If anything is pagan, it is this.

That's only if we are willing to believe that with Christianity, the Romans and their conquered lands simply gave up their previous practices and didn't do what every other culture taken by Christianity has done and intermingled their cultural artifacts with it. That the historical record is murky shouldn't dismiss this speculation. And it certainly justifies those who wish to appropriate (or reappropriate) the holiday season as intrinsically human from those who try to shove the Christ back into Christmas.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
@Soapy

My understanding is that teh apostles ordained deacons, presbyters, and bishops to succeed them. They chose men the believed they could trust to reliably teach the gospel. Remember that in the early centuries there was no New Testament. Christians relied utterly on the bishop making sure things were properly transmitted orally.

Once you agree that the bishops had such authority, it only makes sense that you are going to follow what the bishops determined in terms of new practices, such as replacing a Saturday Sabbath with a Sunday Lord's day, or celebrating Resurrection Sunday. Adding a feast of the Nativity fits in this box.

This, btw, is not a whole lot different from teh Jewish tradition out of which the church grew. As Jews, we understand there is no such thing as Torah without Oral Torah. The rabbis have every right to declare a new holy day for us, such as Chanukah.

I realize you completely reject this manner of thought. My goal here has not been to persuade you, but simply to explain how it goes, so that you can understand why i.e. Christmas exists.
The authority (or rather, command) for Sunday worship came from Emperor Constantine. The command was directed at the new Christian faith but not to the Jews and was designed to meld in with the Roman day of worship of their Sun God, ‘Sol’.

So, yes, the bishops in the Holy Roman Catholic order would have agreed with the command from the Emperor.

Of course, this meant that the Christian Church was drawn away from the Jewish SABBATH DAY worship.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
I don't think the religious aspect of Christmas as a holy day has strayed. True there is nothing in Scripture about celebrating births and the exact month of His birth is not known, nor is it important to know. A better question why Christmas is celebrated the world over by non-religious.
What for them is the 'spirit of Christmas' that draws them together to celebrate?
Glutton, receiving pointless stuff, an excuse to have a ‘jolly’, just to ‘fit in’ with western society, making it easier for western society to engage in their celebration events…
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The authority (or rather, command) for Sunday worship came from Emperor Constantine. The command was directed at the new Christian faith but not to the Jews and was designed to meld in with the Roman day of worship of their Sun God, ‘Sol’.

So, yes, the bishops in the Holy Roman Catholic order would have agreed with the command from the Emperor.

Of course, this meant that the Christian Church was drawn away from the Jewish SABBATH DAY worship.
That is not true. Christians were worshiping on Sunday from the first century. We know this because it is explicitly stated in the Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians that AFTER the sabbath, christians were to keep the Lord's day as a festival. "And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day;" What day was the resurrection? Sunday.

So the pattern of Sunday worship was well established before Constantine. What Constantine did was make Sunday a public holiday, as both Christians and pagans used this day for worship, it was convenient for the empire.

The bishops of teh Catholic church did their own thing. They did not take their lead from Constantine. This is most obvious during the Council of Nicea. Constantine favored the Arian tradition, but the Council of BIshops went the way of the Trinity. Constantine was not a bishop, so he had NO AUTHORITY over Christian doctrine. Indeed, he didn't even become a Christian until he was on his deathbed.
 
"Nothing" is too extreme. Especially considering that even without unbiased written sources, the inspirations for the customs that have become Christmas that aren't directly connected to Christianity appear to come from a common human source: The need for celebration and coming together during a difficult time of year. I suspect many of the things that make Christmas a meaningful holiday (even in the secular culture)--the feasting, resting, gathering together, gifting, singing, and lighting--are supernormal stimuli for instinctual drives to maintain human social bonds and survive a harsh environment.

These are also likely the source of religion: cultural artifacts practiced widely as a tool for maintaining social cohesion. If anything is pagan, it is this.

That's only if we are willing to believe that with Christianity, the Romans and their conquered lands simply gave up their previous practices and didn't do what every other culture taken by Christianity has done and intermingled their cultural artifacts with it. That the historical record is murky shouldn't dismiss this speculation. And it certainly justifies those who wish to appropriate (or reappropriate) the holiday season as intrinsically human from those who try to shove the Christ back into Christmas.

There are really 2 questions, why 25 Dec, and why did the celebrations become popular and take the form they did (in Europe and related cultures)?

The date seems to have been a theological exercise and thus significantly predates the celebration, so it is hard to say that it derives from any pagan festival. Its purpose wasn’t to create a festival.

As to the 2nd question, as you note, it is reasonable to hypothesise that it became popular for the same reason other winter festivals did and that these reflect common human social tendencies. Winter was a dangerous time, so marking it with something positive makes much sense.

and as you note religions emerged and endured for similar social reasons, although I wouldn’t label this pagan, just human.

As for how it is celebrated, other than generic things like feasting and decorating with seasonal flora that are pretty universal, the celebrations don’t seem to have been appropriated from anywhere.

Most of the things claimed as “pagan” are relatively modern rather than ancient cultural practices.

So I agree there are generic commonalities between human celebrations but there aren’t really many specific direct borrowing’s from any particular festival.
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
That is not true. Christians were worshiping on Sunday from the first century. We know this because it is explicitly stated in the Ignatius' letter to the Magnesians that AFTER the sabbath, christians were to keep the Lord's day as a festival. "And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's Day as a festival, the resurrection-day;" What day was the resurrection? Sunday.

So the pattern of Sunday worship was well established before Constantine. What Constantine did was make Sunday a public holiday, as both Christians and pagans used this day for worship, it was convenient for the empire.

The bishops of teh Catholic church did their own thing. They did not take their lead from Constantine. This is most obvious during the Council of Nicea. Constantine favored the Arian tradition, but the Council of BIshops went the way of the Trinity. Constantine was not a bishop, so he had NO AUTHORITY over Christian doctrine. Indeed, he didn't even become a Christian until he was on his deathbed.
You could be more right… or not!

There are many conflicting reports about this change from Sabbath Day worship to Sunday Worship.
 
Indeed, he didn't even become a Christian until he was on his deathbed.

You make a lot of useful points in your post, but not sure this one is quite right.

Back then being baptised on your deathbed wasn’t the same as becoming Christian on your deathbed.

It was a ploy used to ensure you died without sins as baptism washed all previous ones away.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You make a lot of useful points in your post, but not sure this one is quite right.

Back then being baptised on your deathbed wasn’t the same as becoming Christian on your deathbed.

It was a ploy used to ensure you died without sins as baptism washed all previous ones away.
"While his belief in Christianity occurred long before his death, it was only on his deathbed that he was baptised, in 337 by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia," Deathbed conversion - Wikipedia

In the Christian church of that era, one was not considered a Christian until one was baptized -- baptism was the entrance rite into the church. So, the fact that he was baptized so close to his death is evidence that he did not make a full conversion until that time. The fact that he was baptized by an Arian bishop supports the claim that to the end, he favored the Arian position, not the Trinitarian one. Thus no one can say that he is responsible for the adoption of the Nicene Creed.

I can't support this with a website, but I do remember reading when I was young that his main concern in life was the unity of the empire. He was far less concerned about which side won in Nicea as he was that Christianity simply come to a consensus and thus stabilize the empire more. And that the reason he procrastinated conversion to Christianity was because he believed that if he became a Christian, he would have been morally constrained from doing the things he needed to do as Emperor on behalf of the empire. But that was from a book I read some 35 years ago, and I don't remember its name. I wish I could do better with this. But at any rate, this is a historical interpretation, not facts, so you are free to weigh it as you wish.
 
In the Christian church of that era, one was not considered a Christian until one was baptized -- baptism was the entrance rite into the church. So, the fact that he was baptized so close to his death is evidence that he did not make a full conversion until that time. The fact that he was baptized by an Arian bishop supports the claim that to the end, he favored the Arian position, not the Trinitarian one. Thus no one can say that he is responsible for the adoption of the Nicene Creed.

This isn’t really true. Many people who considered themselves and were considered Christians weren’t yet formally baptised (they were called catechumen) and it wasn’t uncommon for people to purposely delay it to maximise the absolution of sins.

As a warrior emperor he had good reason to do this. In addition, formal and public baptism might be politically risky, and he wouldn’t be the only ruler to show their true religious colours on their deathbed.

I agree the “Constantine did XYZ at Nicaea” schtick tends to be nonsense, but his late baptism isn’t really strong evidence to suggest he wasn’t really a Christian. On the other hand, he likely wasn’t a doctrinaire Christian either, and seemed to want to find compromises as you suggested.
 

GardenLady

Active Member
The Jewish religion is one of a series of feasts and fasts tied to the story of God's relationship to humanity. Christianity continues this practice. The church calendar provides anchors for relating the stories of the faith--Jesus' birth, presentation in temple, his ministry, his death and resurrection. The new testament doesn't specify a "church calendar," but I see no problem with that--the calendar still provides a framework for relating important events of Jesus' life and ministry and drawing the congregation into the meaning of those events.

If someone's denomination doesn't celebrate Christmas, that's fine with me. I'll stay out of your denomination's practices; you stay out of others'. What is the point of lecturing people of other denominations on why they are (in your view) wrong?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
This isn’t really true. Many people who considered themselves and were considered Christians weren’t yet formally baptised (they were called catechumen) and it wasn’t uncommon for people to purposely delay it to maximise the absolution of sins.

There could be terrible penances given out, including public penance, Baptisms were postponed, deathbed confessions were the norm. Until the Cluniac Reform.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Well, it's interesting in a physical kind of way, but I personally don't think it has any spiritual significance.

I believe in the sense of spiritual as a quality like joy then there is joy at the end of darkness and the beginning of light again.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
You make a lot of useful points in your post, but not sure this one is quite right.

Back then being baptised on your deathbed wasn’t the same as becoming Christian on your deathbed.

It was a ploy used to ensure you died without sins as baptism washed all previous ones away.

I believe magical incantations and a sprinkle don't change the heart and God looks at the heart.
 
Top