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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The emperor Aurelian revived his cult in AD 274 and promoted Sol Invictus as the chief god of the empire.[2][3] The main festival dedicated to him was the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti ('birthday of the Invincible Sun') on 25 December, the date of the winter solstice in the Roman calendar.
The Emperor Aurelian reintroduced the sun god and cult in 274 AD. The birthday of the unconquered sun was celebrated at the Roman festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25. There is an ongoing debate regarding this date. Did it predate Christmas, or was it was later chosen to be the same day? We do know that Sol Invictus was worshipped in Rome until Christianity took hold as the dominant religion during the reign of Constantine in the 300s A.D.
Games were instituted as well, which are recorded in the Chronography of AD 354, an illustrated codex (the first in Western art) compiled that year in Rome as a gift to a Christian aristocrat. In the section known as the Calendar of Philocalus (after the calligrapher whose name appears on the dedication page), VIII Kal. Jan. (December 25) is annotated N INVICTI CM XXX.
In another section of the Chronography commemorating the laying to rest of martyrs (Disposition of Martyrs, the earliest record of the Roman sanctoral), the liturgical year begins on December 25, and VIII Kal. Jan. is annotated natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea"). In a section listing the consuls, there also is a note for AD 1: dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian. These are the first references to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. Since no martyrs are mentioned after AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas observed by the Roman church in the West is presumed to date to that year.
A person would be ignorant indeed if he did not know that erecting Christmas trees, burning yule logs, hanging mistletoe, and putting up twinkling house lights have no biblical foundation, and in fact, hail from paganism. Santa Claus blends the fourth-century Saint Nicolas with old Germanic and Scandinavian traditions that probably have their roots in Odin worship, and his eight reindeer likely derive from Odin's eight-footed horse, Sleipnir.
The festival of Sol Invictus on the 25th December in the later Roman empire combined the festivals of both the old sun god (Sol Indiges) and the new official sun god (Deus Sol Invictus). The Circus Maximus had been dedicated to Sol Indiges since ancient times, and then was dedicated to Sol Invictus. The Roman emperor Aurelian created the cult of Sol Invictus during his reign in AD 270-275 (in the 3rd century) and, on his coins, Sol was described as ‘Dominus Imperii Romani’, the official deity of the Roman empire. The cult of Sol Invictus was centred in Rome but it was followed across the Roman empire. Sol Invictus, the god of the sun, was one of the most important gods and he symbolised victory, as he defeated darkness and rose every morning. Sol Invictus was the patron of Roman soldiers. (See The Cult of Sol Invictus by G H Halsberghe (1972) and Roman circuses: arenas for chariot-racing by John Humphrey (1986).)
I didn't want to have this argument, but that ought to at least show evidence that it is not simply an urban legend.
All I wanted to do was encourage people to have a conversation and not simply post a link to some podcast.
I don't even care about the podcast, or this topic, but you people are so abrasive and unpleasant (and yes, petulant) that I can't help myself. Your ad hominems and other personal attacks are repulsive and show you know the thin ice your world is constructed on. That's your problem, and I am not going to make it mine.
I am out now. People like you are a big reason "no religion" is the fastest growing segment by far, and will soon be the majority. You. You caused that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The emperor Aurelian revived his cult in AD 274 and promoted Sol Invictus as the chief god of the empire.[2][3] The main festival dedicated to him was the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti ('birthday of the Invincible Sun') on 25 December, the date of the winter solstice in the Roman calendar.
The Emperor Aurelian reintroduced the sun god and cult in 274 AD. The birthday of the unconquered sun was celebrated at the Roman festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25. There is an ongoing debate regarding this date. Did it predate Christmas, or was it was later chosen to be the same day? We do know that Sol Invictus was worshipped in Rome until Christianity took hold as the dominant religion during the reign of Constantine in the 300s A.D.
Games were instituted as well, which are recorded in the Chronography of AD 354, an illustrated codex (the first in Western art) compiled that year in Rome as a gift to a Christian aristocrat. In the section known as the Calendar of Philocalus (after the calligrapher whose name appears on the dedication page), VIII Kal. Jan. (December 25) is annotated N INVICTI CM XXX.
In another section of the Chronography commemorating the laying to rest of martyrs (Disposition of Martyrs, the earliest record of the Roman sanctoral), the liturgical year begins on December 25, and VIII Kal. Jan. is annotated natus Christus in Betleem Iudeae ("Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea"). In a section listing the consuls, there also is a note for AD 1: dominus Iesus Christus natus est VIII kal. Ian. These are the first references to December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. Since no martyrs are mentioned after AD 336, the first celebration of Christmas observed by the Roman church in the West is presumed to date to that year.
A person would be ignorant indeed if he did not know that erecting Christmas trees, burning yule logs, hanging mistletoe, and putting up twinkling house lights have no biblical foundation, and in fact, hail from paganism. Santa Claus blends the fourth-century Saint Nicolas with old Germanic and Scandinavian traditions that probably have their roots in Odin worship, and his eight reindeer likely derive from Odin's eight-footed horse, Sleipnir.
The festival of Sol Invictus on the 25th December in the later Roman empire combined the festivals of both the old sun god (Sol Indiges) and the new official sun god (Deus Sol Invictus). The Circus Maximus had been dedicated to Sol Indiges since ancient times, and then was dedicated to Sol Invictus. The Roman emperor Aurelian created the cult of Sol Invictus during his reign in AD 270-275 (in the 3rd century) and, on his coins, Sol was described as ‘Dominus Imperii Romani’, the official deity of the Roman empire. The cult of Sol Invictus was centred in Rome but it was followed across the Roman empire. Sol Invictus, the god of the sun, was one of the most important gods and he symbolised victory, as he defeated darkness and rose every morning. Sol Invictus was the patron of Roman soldiers. (See The Cult of Sol Invictus by G H Halsberghe (1972) and Roman circuses: arenas for chariot-racing by John Humphrey (1986).)
I didn't want to have this argument, but that ought to at least show evidence that it is not simply an urban legend.
All I wanted to do was encourage people to have a conversation and not simply post a link to some podcast.
I don't even care about the podcast, or this topic, but you people are so abrasive and unpleasant (and yes, petulant) that I can't help myself. Your ad hominems and other personal attacks are repulsive and show you know the thin ice your world is constructed on. That's your problem, and I am not going to make it mine.
I am out now. People like you are a big reason "no religion" is the fastest growing segment by far, and will soon be the majority. You. You caused that.
None of this proves that early Christians used Sol Invictus versus following the tradition of the time, which was to date Christ's conception from the date of his death and then calculate his birthdate nine months later.
You're simply repeating names (Sol Invictus) and dates (December 25th) from your earlier posts. You haven't even tried to address the issue of which of the two theories above is correct.
The larger point is that all of this is pretty irrelevant. No, or very few, Christians think December 25th was the actual date for certain. Additionally, no Christian worships their trees or yule logs.
Instead, your grievance seems to be that Christians "stole" December 25th, trees, and yule logs from the pagans. Given that the pagans in question gave up their faith 1 1/2 millennia ago, and modern paganism dates to the late 1800s, this seems like a pretty specious grievance.
No reputable survey, including Pew, thinks "no religion" is going to be the majority any time soon.
What your post does prove, however, is that you've repeatedly insulted posters here (bolded above), some of whom have gone to great lengths to engage you in a thoughtful discussion. And you've refused to address the crux of the issue; instead, you've simply repeated your earlier arguments about Sol Invictus.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}