Welcome to Gaia! ::

It's getting close to that time of the year. Since it is I thought I'd prepare an info dump addressing a topic that I'm sure is going to come up.

Is Christmas a stolen pagan holiday?

No it's not. Christmas is a mass that celebrates of the incarnation of Christ into the world. Other than Resurrection Day, it is probably the 2nd oldest holiday of the religion. If you can show me what celebrating the incarnation of Christ has to do with any pagan religion I'll gladly concede this point.

Christmas is a ripoff of Saternalia.

I find that one a bit of stretch for a number of reasons.
1. Saternalia was celebrated December 17th to December 23th to celebrate the God, Saturn.
2. The giving of gifts, feasting, and market sales are common elements of any sort of community celebration. To say this these things are exclusively pagan is nonsensical and would make everything pagan.
3. If Saternalia was stolen holiday, why place Christmas 2 days AFTER all the festivities were over with? Why not place it on the same day or even the same time period?

Christmas is a ripoff of Sol Invictus.

This one is debatable and there's evidence to suggest that Sol Inviticus was created specifically to convert Christians back to being pagans. Considering the political threat Christianity cause, it wouldn't be a big surprise.

Dies Natalis Solis Invict was a holiday to celebrate the birth of the sun god Sol Invict. While we know that the cult was set up 274 CE, we don't know when Dies Natalis Solis Invic was actually celebrated. The earliest reference we have of this holiday being celebrated on Dec 25 is by Julian the Philosopher in 363 CE. The Chronography of 354, one of the earliest calanders commissioned by a wealthy Roman Christian, lists a holiday called Natalis Invicti (Birth of the unconquered) on Dec 25 but it is unclear if who this holiday is about. Finally we have Chronographai published in 221, suggesting that Jesus was born on Dec 25. This date was determined by calculating 9 months from the Feast of Annunciation, March 25, the day Jesus was believed to have been conceived. If Dies Natalis Solis Invict was stolen, why is there talks of Jesus being born on Dec 25 pre-dating the founding of the cult of Sol Invictus?

Christmas is a rip off of Yule.

Christmas had long been established in Christianity by the time Christians came in contact with Germanic people. While traditions from Yule were incorporated into Christmas celebrations, it's stretch to say that these traditions were stolen. In Germanic traditions, culture and religion are almost completely inseparable. Even if the religion was to go away, the practices would still continue. You had Germanic people doing the same things they would have been doing during the time Christmas was celebrating. These festivities slowly became part of Christmas traditions for Germanic people as Christianity became common place.

Christmas is a ripoff of Mithra's birth.

This is speculation at best. We know very little about Mithra's cult. The only thing we know is that Mithra's birth was celebrated on Dec 25 and was popular among soldiers. That's about it.

Jesus' birthday wasn't on Dec 25 and aren't birthdays pagan?

No s**t. The date is arbitrary since it is unknown when he was actually born. The tradition of celebrating his birth on Dec 25 stems from when he was believed to have been conceived, March 25. March 25 is the Feast of Annunciation, when Mary was told she was pregnant with Jesus. This date is calculated from the day that Jesus is believed too have died and the Hebrew tradition of Prophets dying on the same day as their conception. Add 9 months to this and we get... Dec 25. As for birthdays being pagan, there were pagans that celebrated their births and the births of others for religious reasons. The pagan religious reasons behind such celebrations have been either removed or reinterpreted. Since birthdays are largely secular, there's no prohibition on celebrating them except by a few branches of Christianity.

Christmas was created to convert the pagans.

Again this is a stretch. Again, Early Christianity was very syncretic. Christian converts could take elements of their culture into the religion and reinterpret their cultural elements to fit into their new religion. It's quite possible that Bishops could have reinterpreted these cultural elements but to do so would require extensive knowledge of the culture they were dealing with. In the case of Early Christianity since many of the Bishops came from such cultures, if they did, such reinterpretations would be ethical. In the case of post-Fall of Rome Christianity, there were little to no centers of formal education, especially concerning culture outside of Rome. The likely hood of a Bishop from outside of a Germanic culture being familiar enough with Germanic symbols to successfully do this seems rather slim. Also these supposedly stolen elements are only garnishes to Christmas and could still be celebrated without a Christmas tree, mistletoe, or .

If there are any more big points I should address or clarify please share them with me and I will add them to this guide.

Now there's no denying that there was some syncreticism going on, but to attribute it to stolen holidays or dirty tactics is quite a stretch.

Thanks heart . If there's anything I need to add or address, let me know

Thanks heart .

Well there were many Christianities around after Jesus' death. They were very diverse and could be regarded as separate religions. The only thing that they all had in common was Jesus and they couldn't even agree on what they believed about him. It was a massive ******** to say the least In 325 CE, a majority of these Christianities all eventually unified as one Christianity by finally agreeing on something other than "Jesus is awesome" and soon after became the state religion of Rome. After this time, like you stated, it became official that Christ's birth would be celebrated on Dec 25, favoring the Roman tradition of Christianity stance of when Christ was born for obvious reasons. Now when Christianity was introduced to the Germanic people is unclear. You have accounts of various Germanic tribes up until 260 CE. Then you have this big gap in history until the 900's when you start hearing about them again. Now Romans tended to not like Germanic people. Seeing how Romans didn't like interacting with Germanic tribes it seems more likely that Christianity didn't come into contact with Germanic tribes until after the sacking of Rome (after the date of Christmas was already established). If you want to stretch, it could be argued it was introduced shortly after 325 CE at the earliest, since well that's when Christianity started getting things organized, but it seems highly unlikely since we don't hear anything about the Germanic tribes again in any records until after the speculated sacking of Rome.

Thanks. heart

That really means a lot hearing that from you all.

Alright. thanks for the heads up.