Are you culturally related to your religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

Most of Christianity was a complete U-turn from paganism, for better or worse. Were there a few overlapping customs?Of course. Similar to your example many people believe that it is not accident that lent occurs at the end of winter when food supplies would have been depleted. Claiming that the Christians just stole pagan customs is not an accurate statement about Christian customs and traditions.

Finally, if this is what you believe, there is nothing stopping you from celebrating the pagan traditions instead. It sounds like celebrating Saturnalia would be more spiritually fulfilling for you than celebrating “stolen” traditions.

-signed, an atheist

Thanks but I was looking for references specific in that podcast, and posted what I did at the PP's request. I am not the PP who used the word "stolen".

Can I get the response promised from the podcast poster now please?

Podcast poster here. If you had listened to it, you'd know that Saturnalia ranged from October to early December, so there wasn't a lot of overlap in the dates.

If you had listened, you'd also know that the Romans had a festival almost every week (they had a lot of gods after all), so it would be pretty impossible to choose a date that *wasn't* a pagan holiday.

Also there was something about Sol Invictus not being it either, but I listen to the pod a few weeks ago and have forgotten. You'll have to listen.

PS. I was talking about The Rest is History podcast, not the other which looks interesting and which I might listen to as well.

But again, if you had listened to TRIH, you'd also know that December 25th was picked because it's nine months from Easter. Early Christians (and Jews) were big on calendar significance that way.

Except... Christmas is fixed at the 25th of December. The date of Easter is determined by the phase of the moon (Easter is always celebrated on the Sunday immediately following the Paschal Full Moon) and can vary between March 22 and April 25, essentially 12 to 16 weeks measured one way and 36-40 weeks measured the other.

So no, calendar significance but rather astronomical/seasonal significance.... just like the pagans.

Certainly not enough to disqualify all the other research pointing out the post-hoc coincidences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about. But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

"While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea. On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

Back to the topic: I think it's because you have things in common with others who were raised the same. Even more so with others in your same age group; for instance, Catholics of my generation had the "guitar mass." I can find common ground with others who were raised the same. Sometimes it's just something humorous, sometimes something more serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

How so? You have to be specific to get an A. It's not clear which holiday you believe those early Christians snatched from the poor Romans. Do you believe the Romans were celebrating both Sol Invictus and Saturnalia on different days/weeks, but that the church co-opted both and combined them into a single holiday? What evidence can you provide for this other than a passing mention of yule logs and trees? Are you aware that yule logs and Christmas trees weren't a Roman tradition, and have nothing to do with the date of Christmas? Yule logs and Christmas trees: not the answer. You've failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No matter my belief or non belief in God, I'm Jewish. I'm Jewish because my parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. were also Jewish. Regardless of their beliefs, they lived in Jewish communities and were treated as Jewish by others. We celebrate -- and have celebrated for generations -- Jewish traditions and observances. Whether I believe in God is irrelevant.

+1

I’m sending my son to Sunday School, belong to a synagogue, celebrate the holidays and participate in the life and activities of the synagogue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

Ad hominem is when you attack the source and not the substance. Certainly google shows hundreds of links with similar info, all linked back to historians and sources. We could go there... but instead...

Why not try addressing the substance?

[Anonymous]

Probably because it was the religion of my ancestors going back for centuries and centuries.

You know what they say, you can take the Catholic out of the church but you can't take the Church out of the Catholic. Or something like that. I like traditions and ritual. Even if I don't really believe in what is being celebrated.

--lapsed Irish Catholic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

Ad hominem is when you attack the source and not the substance. Certainly google shows hundreds of links with similar info, all linked back to historians and sources. We could go there... but instead...

Why not try addressing the substance?

When I did address the substance extensively above, I got a complaint that I hadn't summarized a podcast and then called petulant. The sources are out there, you've been provided them, you can read them and learn something if you'd like but no one can make you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

Ad hominem is when you attack the source and not the substance. Certainly google shows hundreds of links with similar info, all linked back to historians and sources. We could go there... but instead...

Why not try addressing the substance?

When I did address the substance extensively above, I got a complaint that I hadn't summarized a podcast and then called petulant. The sources are out there, you've been provided them, you can read them and learn something if you'd like but no one can make you.

No, you got called petulant when you were being petulant. Need me to quote exactly when that was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

Ad hominem is when you attack the source and not the substance. Certainly google shows hundreds of links with similar info, all linked back to historians and sources. We could go there... but instead...

Why not try addressing the substance?

When I did address the substance extensively above, I got a complaint that I hadn't summarized a podcast and then called petulant. The sources are out there, you've been provided them, you can read them and learn something if you'd like but no one can make you.

No, you got called petulant when you were being petulant. Need me to quote exactly when that was?

I've been genuinely just trying to engage in a conversation on this, because the evidence is interesting to me and as someone who heard the Sol Invictus story a lot growing up, the ultimate conclusion was surprising. It doesn't seem like you want to have a conversation though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

Ad hominem is when you attack the source and not the substance. Certainly google shows hundreds of links with similar info, all linked back to historians and sources. We could go there... but instead...

Why not try addressing the substance?

When I did address the substance extensively above, I got a complaint that I hadn't summarized a podcast and then called petulant. The sources are out there, you've been provided them, you can read them and learn something if you'd like but no one can make you.

No, you got called petulant when you were being petulant. Need me to quote exactly when that was?

^^^ DP, and you yourself seem incredibly petulant, as your posts here and above illustrate. Clearly you don't have a good counter to pp's well-researched and documented arguments, so you're going with ad hominems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I’m of European ancestry and I’m atheist. I stay culturally close to Christianity because
Christianity is central to all our cultural things. And obviously I have very little problem with this because Christianity stole all the pagan culture and customs from them to create their own anyway.

This has been refuted many, many times here. And, of course, it's been refuted by actual historians. For starters, although there are lots more historians saying the same thing: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/the-rest-is-history/402-christmas-pagan-or-christian/

Instead of posting a link to a podcast, why not post the facts presented here? Not all of them, just the best one refuting the MANY sources indicating the opposite.

DP. You get what you give. If you want someone on a message board to refute your thesis in detail, you first need to provide a detailed thesis, which you haven't done. It's all been laid out in this award winning atheist blog...but you have to do the actual work of reading it.

https://historyforatheists.com/the-great-myths/5

OK, that's fine, I am a DP but I'll do as you ask. I'll cite a few facts specifically and then if you can tell me how the podcast link refutes those as false that would be educational to me.

Saturnalia is a classic example of a winter solstice festival, one of many which have evolved in different cultures to bring good cheer in the season of long nights, and to mark the sense a sense of renewal and rejuvenation. In 274 AD, long after Saturnalia was already a thing, the Romans established yet another way to mark the season: a day to celebrate the sun god Sol Invictus. And the day in question? December 25th.

It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same December 25 the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries, the Christians also took part.'

Less than a century later, Pope Julius I officially established that same date as Christ’s birthday, conveniently appropriating the existing pagan shenanigans as a key Christian date.

https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas

Let's start with that one. I will post more. How does the podcast refute that?

I'm the person you've responded to, and I didn't post a link to a podcast, nor do I know what's in this podcast which you're so passionate about.

Wow you're such a petulant and passive aggressive person. I told you, someone posted a link to a podcast without saying the points that were in it. That kind of thing ends conversations, so I suggested the points be made so the conversation could continue. Then someone demanded a citation first, which I provided. It's not about the podcast. Why do you have to be that way about it? Do you not understand my point? This is a forum for conversation.

But I do know what's in the link I provided, which you don't seem to care about. As to the Saturnalia / Sol Invictus question, Tim O'Neill's blog gives us some excellent information:

Again, more passive aggressive rudeness. As stated, it was one conversation. You want to have a second one? OK, fine.

While the idea that December 25 had some great pagan significance is repeated endlessly, the only association we have between that date and anything at all pagan is the ambiguous reference in the “Calendar of Philocalus”, and even if that does refer to a birth celebration of either the sun itself (as opposed to any god) or Sol Invictus, that is a slender thread on which to hang this idea.

This is completely false as shown in the link posted already: https://www.history.co.uk/article/the-pagan-roots-of-christmas. There are plenty more.

On the other hand, there is a strong tradition within early Christianity that points in another and totally non-pagan direction. Within Judaism there was a tradition that prophets died on the same date on which they were conceived. Jesus was thought to have died on 14 Nisan according to the Jewish calendar. That’s March 25, which is celebrated in various Christian liturgical calendars as the Feast of the Annunciation to this day – the feast of the conception of Jesus. March 25 was also thought to be the date of the Creation of the World. So if, according to this theological calculation, Jesus was conceived on March 25, when was he born? The obvious answer is nine months later: on December 25. Of course, there were a variety of dates proposed for the birth of Jesus in early Patristic writings, ranging from April 19 or May 20 (referred to and dismissed by Clement of Alexandria – 150-215 AD) to November 17 (Clement’s own calculation) or March 28 (found in De Pascha Computus of 243 AD) or perhaps April 2 ( Hippolytus of Rome – 170-235 AD). But Hippolytus also gives the date as “eight days before the calends of January (i.e. December 25), and it was December 25 that eventually predominated; at first in Rome and then elsewhere in the Empire.

In my opinion, this is a real stretch of rationalizations and unsupported guesses.

"So what is the origin of the date? Given that the calculation of December 25 from the conception/death date of March 25 predates any need to co-opt pagan festivals by about 200 years, it is most likely that this is the original reason this date was one of five that were considered and argued for by early Christians. It’s possible that if there was a feast of the nativity of Sol Invictus on the same date, it’s therefore plausible this affected the final selection of this date over the others; though it could also be pure co-incidence."

This is my own interpolation here: As O-Neill has argued, from early church documents it's clear that the date Dec 25 was already in the running for the birthday of Christ long before the Romans, as you say, declared it Sol Invictus in 274. Saturnalia was traditionally celebrated Dec 17-23. Christmas was (and still is, on the church calendar) twelve days, Dec 25-Jan 5. Timing-wise there is no overlap at all between the two festivals; the last day of Saturnalia and the first day of Christmas are separated by 2 days, and altogether there is a total span of 20 days for the two holidays including the time in-between them. They were clearly intended as separate holidays.

2 days of separation? Ok then, mea culpa, that clearly indicates there was no attempt to co opt them and it is entirely coincidental, as are the pagan traditions like yule logs and trees in the house, those are also concidental. I stand corrected.

DP. You realize that the History Channel site isn't a reliable source, right? It's not legitimate modern scholarship much less a primary source. You can start with C.P.E. Nothaft's "The Origins of the Christmas Date: Some Recent Trends in Historical Research" if you're actually interested in what genuine historians believe about the dating issue. He's also done some podcasts and interviews on the topic.

Ad hominem is when you attack the source and not the substance. Certainly google shows hundreds of links with similar info, all linked back to historians and sources. We could go there... but instead...

Why not try addressing the substance?

When I did address the substance extensively above, I got a complaint that I hadn't summarized a podcast and then called petulant. The sources are out there, you've been provided them, you can read them and learn something if you'd like but no one can make you.

No, you got called petulant when you were being petulant. Need me to quote exactly when that was?

I've been genuinely just trying to engage in a conversation on this, because the evidence is interesting to me and as someone who heard the Sol Invictus story a lot growing up, the ultimate conclusion was surprising. It doesn't seem like you want to have a conversation though.

DP. Correct. This person doesn't want to have a discussion. They just want to insult you.

To the atheist with the insults: perhaps you should try to prove that Sol Invictus DOES underlie the Christians' date of December 25th. If you can't produce any arguments, then you should sit down.

[Anonymous]

Discussing religion is so interesting and yet the handful of nerds who troll this forum still manage to make every topic tedious.