Do you agree with the conclusion of the writer in the Catholic paper that I brought earlier?
I reply:
Yes, I agree with the history and also agree with the author on the limits historical documents can show us about the choice of Dec 25 as the day of celebration of Christ's birth.
The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date.
It is known history that the pagans used to worship their sun god, Baal and his son, Tammuz on December 25th. It is also known history that - in order to entice the pagans to join the Church - the Church agreed to accept December 25th as a special day of worship, too. Now, where is logic applied so far here? (emphasis mine)
The present writer is inclined to think that, be the origin of the feast in East or West, and though the abundance of analogous midwinter festivals may indefinitely have helped the choice of the December date...(emphasis mine)
ROGER:
Finally you agree that December 25th was adopted by the Church as a way to attract pagans to join and stay with the new Church. Of course, this is considered to be a known historical fact.
And by the way… We call that special celebration of God being born in the flesh as Christmas, ie Christ's Mass. The name should at least show you that we are not commemorating Tammuz or Baal but Christ. Not idol worship but true worship of God.
It should also be noted that an early belief was that people died on the anniversary of their conception. Jesus died on the week of Passover, putting the date right around March 25th in 33AD. Nine months after March 25th is December 25th.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if they were really trying to impress the pagans, why pick a date which is 3 days AFTER the vernal equinox? Put it ON the equinox if you're trying to appease the pagans!