Christmas is not a stolen holiday.

[rmcdra]

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 festivies 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 inseperable. 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 solidiers. That's about it.

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

No s**t. The date is arbritary since it is unknow 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 cebrated thier births and the births of others for religious reasons. The pagan religious reasons behind such celebrations have been either removed or reintrepreted. 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 (and technically even Christianity today) was very syncretic. Christian converts could take elements of thier 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.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Now, I'm not going to try to disagree with what you said.

However, is it something worth going lengths to disprove? Even if the arbitrary date WAS chosen because it coincided with existing celebrations, what is wrong with that?

I've always understood it as this: December 25th coincided with Pagan Celebrations. Early Christians didn't know the date. So they decided "Well, we are already having these celebrations in December anyway, let's have it towards the end of December."  

[rmcdra]

Matt Pniewski

Now, I'm not going to try to disagree with what you said.

However, is it something worth going lengths to disprove? Even if the arbitrary date WAS chosen because it coincided with existing celebrations, what is wrong with that?

I've always understood it as this: December 25th coincided with Pagan Celebrations. Early Christians didn't know the date. So they decided "Well, we are already having these celebrations in December anyway, let's have it towards the end of December."

The implication that Christmas was a stolen holiday would mean that the holiday was a result of culture rape or developed through some sort of deception. I wanted to see if it was true. It doesn't appear to be that way.

Well only one Pagan holiday was actually going on on December 25. The other celebration going on ended before December 25. There's evidence to suggest that Dies Natalis Solis Invict was created to convert Christians to being Pagans. If Christmas was selected to convert pagans why set it later than the date of these holidays? Wouldn't it make more sense if you were trying to convert pagans to you know, actually set it on the same day as your competitors celebrations rather than afte?  

[freelance lover]

Matt Pniewski

Now, I'm not going to try to disagree with what you said.

However, is it something worth going lengths to disprove? Even if the arbitrary date WAS chosen because it coincided with existing celebrations, what is wrong with that?

I've always understood it as this: December 25th coincided with Pagan Celebrations. Early Christians didn't know the date. So they decided "Well, we are already having these celebrations in December anyway, let's have it towards the end of December."

He said this much better than I could have. It's also worth mentioning Easter has a lot of remnants of paganism in it as well (the egg being a sign of fertility and the seasons changing to a time when food can be grown.) I've also heard that Christmas was designed to align with the winter solstice, which 2000 years ago would have possibly fallen on the 25th rather than the 21st. Or it's also possible celebrations would have lasted several days or that the date has some how changed through the course of history.

I honestly don't really care if Christian holidays did or didn't get their dates picked based off of a pagan calendar. That doesn't change the personal meaning these holidays have to me since the date is arbitrary. It's the meaning that's important, not the date.  

[Matt Pniewski]

rmcdra

Matt Pniewski

Now, I'm not going to try to disagree with what you said.

However, is it something worth going lengths to disprove? Even if the arbitrary date WAS chosen because it coincided with existing celebrations, what is wrong with that?

I've always understood it as this: December 25th coincided with Pagan Celebrations. Early Christians didn't know the date. So they decided "Well, we are already having these celebrations in December anyway, let's have it towards the end of December."

The implication that Christmas was a stolen holiday would mean that the holiday was a result of culture rape or developed through some sort of deception. I wanted to see if it was true. It doesn't appear to be that way.

But that does imply that there is no difference between borrowing traditions and culture rape, which is the same problem I have with whiny young Pagans who make the same argument.

Quote:

Well only one Pagan holiday was actually going on on December 25. The other celebration going on ended before December 25. There's evidence to suggest that Dies Natalis Solis Invict was created to convert Christians to being Pagans. If Christmas was selected to convert pagans why set it later than the date of these holidays? Wouldn't it make more sense if you were trying to convert pagans to you know, actually set it on the same day as your competitors celebrations rather than afte?

Sort of think that puts too much of an emphasis on the date. Also, people were willing to change religions over different festivals? Unless somehow Neo Pagan groups start a "Everyone gets a free Parrot Day" the times, dates, and celebrations seem Arbirtrary, because it's all about the why, instead of the when and how.


But yeah... Free Parrot day would rock.  

[rmcdra]

freelance lover

He said this much better than I could have. It's also worth mentioning Easter has a lot of remnants of paganism in it as well (the egg being a sign of fertility and the seasons changing to a time when food can be grown.) I've also heard that Christmas was designed to align with the winter solstice, which 2000 years ago would have possibly fallen on the 25th rather than the 21st. Or it's also possible celebrations would have lasted several days or that the date has some how changed through the course of history.

Paganized version of passover would be more accurate description of Easter. I'll be doing a guide in the future to show how Easter has more in common with passover than pagan fertility rituals. Yes it is syncretic with such rituals but it still far from stolen. Yeah Dec 25 was the solstice date. What does this change in date have to do with my argument.

Quote:

I honestly don't really care if Christian holidays did or didn't get their dates picked based off of a pagan calendar. That doesn't change the personal meaning these holidays have to me since the date is arbitrary. It's the meaning that's important, not the date.

Yes the meaning is the big thing that makes Christmas a Christian holiday.  

[rmcdra]

Matt Pniewski

But that does imply that there is no difference between borrowing traditions and culture rape, which is the same problem I have with whiny young Pagans who make the same argument.

Yes there is a difference. Borrowing implies that cultural elements were open to outsiders. While Greek and Roman cultures were open, this is irrelevant since the main converts of Christianity were... Greeks and Romans. They used their own culture to develop the traditions. No outsiders were involved. Culture rape involves actually taking something from an outside culture, having no understanding of the thing in it's cultural context, giving it a new meaning and saying it came from said culture. This is common with the little Mama Silver play-gans. I do not deny that there is syncreticism and I even state that in my OP. I don't like whiny young pagans either. That also motivated the making of this OP.

Quote:

Sort of think that puts too much of an emphasis on the date. Also, people were willing to change religions over different festivals? Unless somehow Neo Pagan groups start a "Everyone gets a free Parrot Day" the times, dates, and celebrations seem Arbirtrary, because it's all about the why, instead of the when and how.


But yeah... Free Parrot day would rock.

That's a claim that people make. It's stupid yes but you know it could be possible. Here I blow the claim out of the water and show it to not even be possible.  

[zz1000zz]

Some brief thoughts:

rmcdra

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?

I've never heard anyone claim there is evidence Sol Invictus (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) was created to convert Christians back to paganism. Seeing as nobody knows which celebration predated which, I find this hard to believe.

As for the fact people talked about the date possibly being December 25th, that isn't strong evidence of anything. It is quite possible people came up with that idea, but later the date was set on December 25th for a different reason.

rmcdra

Here I blow the claim out of the water and show it to not even be possible.

You've really done no such thing. Ultimately, we can't know why December 25th was picked (despite you claiming to). It's a mystery we can only guess at.

Moreover, putting dates close to each other wouldn't be to convert people between religions. It would be to bring the religions closer together, thus bringing the people closer together. This would be done to promote harmony between groups, an important thing in any empire which consisted of many different belief systems (far more than you listed).

rmcdra

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.

This is actually untrue. The early Christian church intentionally avoided giving gifts so as to distance themselves from paganism. Centuries passed after Christmas was first celebrated before gift giving was adopted by Christians. Even then, gifts weren't given on Christmas, but rather on St. Nichols Day (December 6th). Over a millennium had passed before Christmas became associated with gift giving.

In any event, the main issue about Christmas isn't the date. It's the traditions which go along with it. These traditions have changed greatly since the holiday was first celebrated, and they aren't rooted in Christianity. For example, why are Germanic traditions (Yule) so intrinsically tied to the holiday when they have no basis in the Bible?

Of course, this goes beyond the issue of adopting pagan aspects. There is also the question of why Charles Dickens was able to successfully lead an effort to reform the holiday in a way which moved it further away from the original Christian celebrations.  

[rmcdra]

zz1000zz

I've never heard anyone claim there is evidence Sol Invictus (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) was created to convert Christians back to paganism. Seeing as nobody knows which celebration predated which, I find this hard to believe.

As for the fact people talked about the date possibly being December 25th, that isn't strong evidence of anything. It is quite possible people came up with that idea, but later the date was set on December 25th for a different reason.

Here. Steven Hijman's paper states that there is no evidence to suggest that Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was ever celebrated prior to 354/362 on December 25. The Chrography of 356 is vague in what was being celebrated on December 25 (Birth of the Unconquered). Why assume that Sol Invictus is the being mentioned here? In 362 we have Julian the Philosopher claiming that December 25 was explicitly Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. What we know of Julian the Philosopher was that he had a beef with Christianity and even pasted laws barring Christians from teaching jobs and positions of political power. He wanted to revive various pagan religions so I don't see how it would be a stretch to think that he would set a holiday specifically to undermind the formulating Christianity.

Quote:

You've really done no such thing. Ultimately, we can't know why December 25th was picked (despite you claiming to). It's a mystery we can only guess at.

And why should we discount that speculations of his birth being on Dec 25 were present before the cult of Sol Invictus was formed?

Quote:

Moreover, putting dates close to each other wouldn't be to convert people between religions. It would be to bring the religions closer together, thus bringing the people closer together. This would be done to promote harmony between groups, an important thing in any empire which consisted of many different belief systems (far more than you listed).

Depends on the practices. If the practices performed on a holiday are in direct opposition to another religion's practices then I fail to see how it would bring the religions closer together. Next I only listed the common holidays that people claim were stolen by Christianity. There was nothing stolen from these pagan religions. Syncretized? Yes. Borrowed? Irrelevant since the people forming the traditions were from the cultures in question. Stolen? No since the converts of Christianity who were creating and garnishing this holiday were from the pagan cultures in question.

Quote:

This is actually untrue. The early Christian church intentionally avoided giving gifts so as to distance themselves from paganism. Centuries passed after Christmas was first celebrated before gift giving was adopted by Christians. Even then, gifts weren't given on Christmas, but rather on St. Nichols Day (December 6th). Over a millennium had passed before Christmas became associated with gift giving.

Okay but that's largely irrelevant. The act of gift giving in and of it's self is not exclusive to paganism. The people who are arguing this claim that this practice was exclusive to pagans and only pagans did this. That would be on par to claiming that cooking was a pagan practice because the pagans did it.

Quote:

In any event, the main issue about Christmas isn't the date. It's the traditions which go along with it. These traditions have changed greatly since the holiday was first celebrated, and they aren't rooted in Christianity. For example, why are Germanic traditions (Yule) so intrinsically tied to the holiday when they have no basis in the Bible?

Uh because we are Germanic people. Even if there was no religion, we'd still have the same cultural practices. Regardless if Yule was the reason for celebrating during this time or not, they would still be celebrating this way. Christmas happened to be celebrated when these people were celebrating Yule. As Christianity became more common with the Germanic people, the focus of celebrating during this time, shifted from Yule to Christmas. Concerning your Bible comment, the reason for celebrating is based on the Bible. I'm pretty sure Christ's birth is covered in the Bible. So what if the celebration methods and symbols aren't rooted in the Bible. Unless you are saying that such a celebration and the usage of such symbols are in conflict with scripture, your point is moot.

Quote:

Of course, this goes beyond the issue of adopting pagan aspects. There is also the question of why Charles Dickens was able to successfully lead an effort to reform the holiday in a way which moved it further away from the original Christian celebrations.

No clue on that one and not the focus of this guide. Let's stay on topic.  

[zz1000zz]

rmcdra

zz1000zz

I've never heard anyone claim there is evidence Sol Invictus (or Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) was created to convert Christians back to paganism. Seeing as nobody knows which celebration predated which, I find this hard to believe.

As for the fact people talked about the date possibly being December 25th, that isn't strong evidence of anything. It is quite possible people came up with that idea, but later the date was set on December 25th for a different reason.

Here. Steven Hijman's paper states that there is no evidence to suggest that Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was ever celebrated prior to 354/362 on December 25. The Chrography of 356 is vague in what was being celebrated on December 25 (Birth of the Unconquered). Why assume that Sol Invictus is the being mentioned here? In 362 we have Julian the Philosopher claiming that December 25 was explicitly Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. What we know of Julian the Philosopher was that he had a beef with Christianity and even pasted laws barring Christians from teaching jobs and positions of political power. He wanted to revive various pagan religions so I don't see how it would be a stretch to think that he would set a holiday specifically to undermind the formulating Christianity.

A lack of evidence does not amount to evidence of something. It is certainly possible Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was made to convert Christians, just as the opposite is possible. There is no evidence either way.

rmcdra

Quote:

You've really done no such thing. Ultimately, we can't know why December 25th was picked (despite you claiming to). It's a mystery we can only guess at.

And why should we discount that speculations of his birth being on Dec 25 were present before the cult of Sol Invictus was formed?

Nobody has suggested we should.

rmcdra

Quote:

This is actually untrue. The early Christian church intentionally avoided giving gifts so as to distance themselves from paganism. Centuries passed after Christmas was first celebrated before gift giving was adopted by Christians. Even then, gifts weren't given on Christmas, but rather on St. Nichols Day (December 6th). Over a millennium had passed before Christmas became associated with gift giving.

Okay but that's largely irrelevant. The act of gift giving in and of it's self is not exclusive to paganism. The people who are arguing this claim that this practice was exclusive to pagans and only pagans did this. That would be on par to claiming that cooking was a pagan practice because the pagans did it.

It sounds like you are setting up a strawman here. I don't know what people have said to you, but the argument you are talking about is not one I've ever seen in serious discourse.

rmcdra

Quote:

In any event, the main issue about Christmas isn't the date. It's the traditions which go along with it. These traditions have changed greatly since the holiday was first celebrated, and they aren't rooted in Christianity. For example, why are Germanic traditions (Yule) so intrinsically tied to the holiday when they have no basis in the Bible?

Uh because we are Germanic people. Even if there was no religion, we'd still have the same cultural practices. Regardless if Yule was the reason for celebrating during this time or not, they would still be celebrating this way. Christmas happened to be celebrated when these people were celebrating Yule. As Christianity became more common with the Germanic people, the focus of celebrating during this time, shifted from Yule to Christmas. Concerning your Bible comment, the reason for celebrating is based on the Bible. I'm pretty sure Christ's birth is covered in the Bible. So what if the celebration methods and symbols aren't rooted in the Bible. Unless you are saying that such a celebration and the usage of such symbols are in conflict with scripture, your point is moot.

Quote:

Of course, this goes beyond the issue of adopting pagan aspects. There is also the question of why Charles Dickens was able to successfully lead an effort to reform the holiday in a way which moved it further away from the original Christian celebrations.

No clue on that one and not the focus of this guide. Let's stay on topic.

To me, it seems quite relevant to discuss why we have the Christmas celebrations we have. The fact there was an organized effort to move the focus of Christmas celebrations away from the church seems like it would be relevant to your overall point.

But I really have no idea what position you are advancing. Could you perhaps clarify what you are arguing against?  

[rmcdra]

zz1000zz

A lack of evidence does not amount to evidence of something. It is certainly possible Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was made to convert Christians, just as the opposite is possible. There is no evidence either way.

Ah here we go. I was mistaken. Chronography of 354 is believed to be earliest reference to Christmas. It lists the other holidays concerning Sol Invictus but does is explicitly vague concerning what Dec 25. Seeing how Chirst is also the "Unconquered" and this Calender served as a Liturgy calender, it's not too big of a stretch. By scholars such as ones in my source below, it is considered one of the earliest reference to a Christ's Mass.

Source: Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire A.D.100-400 (Yale University Press) 1984, ch. VIII "Conversions of intellectuals".

Quote:

It sounds like you are setting up a strawman here. I don't know what people have said to you, but the argument you are talking about is not one I've ever seen in serious discourse.

Uh have you looked up any websites about the "ebil xtians" or how the Christians stole Christmas from the pagans? They make these ridiculous claims. I am addressing the ridiculous claims made by such individuals because a lot of people believe them.

Quote:

To me, it seems quite relevant to discuss why we have the Christmas celebrations we have. The fact there was an organized effort to move the focus of Christmas celebrations away from the church seems like it would be relevant to your overall point.

But I really have no idea what position you are advancing. Could you perhaps clarify what you are arguing against?

I'm arguing that Christmas was NOT a stolen holiday. The holiday is of Christian origin. There was no "Christian Conspiracy" or "agenda" involved in it's formulation. Yes practices and customs done by pagans now garnish this holiday but these customs and practices are not central to Christmas given what Christmas is about. These garnishes came from within by converts, "hey we were doing this back when we pagans, let's keep doing this but let it mean this instead." It was not some scheme, "hmm how can we trick people into joining our religion" as these Mama Silver ******** and angtheists and Zeitgeist nutters want to claim.

Dickens's addition to Christmas and peoples focusing on his Christmas story is off topic in this discussion. It is not relevant to what I am addressing. If you'd like to discuss this then please take it to a new topic.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You've really done no such thing. Ultimately, we can't know why December 25th was picked (despite you claiming to). It's a mystery we can only guess at.

And why should we discount that speculations of his birth being on Dec 25 were present before the cult of Sol Invictus was formed?

Nobody has suggested we should.

It seems like you are suggesting that the Chronographai should be discounted as evidence supporting why a Dec 25 tradition was selected. If I am mistaken, then I will drop this claim here. All I'm claiming is that there is evidence to suggest that Dec 25 was selected for other reasons besides "these other holidays were going on around Dec 25" as seems to be commonly believed.  

[zz1000zz]

rmcdra

Quote:

It sounds like you are setting up a strawman here. I don't know what people have said to you, but the argument you are talking about is not one I've ever seen in serious discourse.

Uh have you looked up any websites about the "ebil xtians" or how the Christians stole Christmas from the pagans? They make these ridiculous claims. I am addressing the ridiculous claims made by such individuals because a lot of people believe them.

Ah, I see. I can't say I've ever payed much attention to those groups or people. I tend to try not to talk to loons too much.

I apologize for misunderstanding what you were getting at with this topic.

rmcdra

these customs and practices are not central to Christmas given what Christmas is about.

The problem with not wanting to discuss things like Dickens (and it wasn't his story he promoted, it was specifically an anti-church movement) is it makes it hard to say "what Christmas is about." Initially, Christmas was not an important holiday at all. It had been around for hundreds of years before it became significant.

I don't see a way to say what Christmas is about without addressing how Christmas has evolved over the centuries. Then again, we don't really have to talk about what Christmas is about to dispel the silly rumors spread by loons.

rmcdra

zz1000zz

rmcdra

And why should we discount that speculations of his birth being on Dec 25 were present before the cult of Sol Invictus was formed?

Nobody has suggested we should.

It seems like you are suggesting that the Chronographai should be discounted as evidence supporting why a Dec 25 tradition was selected. If I am mistaken, then I will drop this claim here. All I'm claiming is that there is evidence to suggest that Dec 25 was selected for other reasons besides "these other holidays were going on around Dec 25" as seems to be commonly believed.

I agree there is evidence to suggest it. I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to really know. In other words, we shouldn't discount that evidence, but we should acknowledge it isn't proof.  

[rmcdra]

zz1000zz

The problem with not wanting to discuss things like Dickens (and it wasn't his story he promoted, it was specifically an anti-church movement) is it makes it hard to say "what Christmas is about." Initially, Christmas was not an important holiday at all. It had been around for hundreds of years before it became significant.

I don't see a way to say what Christmas is about without addressing how Christmas has evolved over the centuries. Then again, we don't really have to talk about what Christmas is about to dispel the silly rumors spread by loons.

But Christmas really hasn't changed. The core reason for Christmas is celebration of Christ's birth. The only thing that possibly has changed is that many Christians don't celebrate Christmas as a Mass but that is to be expected due to the variety of Protestant groups.

The customs of how this holiday is celebrated have changed certainly. That's normal due to Christianity's acceptance of all peoples. The celebration customs of how the Germanic Christians celebrate Christmas have certainly been adapted by non-Christians and other reasons for celebration are attributed in Christmas's place by these non-Christians certainly. Since I'm discussing the religious aspect of the holiday, I'm failing to see what the "cultural dressings" of how one group celebrates this holiday is adapted by another group of people who wish to celebrate in the same cultural dressings for a different reason has to do with how Christmas has changed?

I guess we could discuss how cultural customs of how one group celebrates Christmas are confused for Christmas. That would certainly be in the scope of the OP. Or we could discuss how Christmas stopped being a Mass for many Christians.

rmcdra

I agree there is evidence to suggest it. I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to really know. In other words, we shouldn't discount that evidence, but we should acknowledge it isn't proof.

Ah gotcha. Alright, then would this claim be better? While this is not proof it certainly can be evidence suggestive of Christ's birth being speculated and possibly celebrated on Dec 25 well before the founding of Sol Invictus in 270 CE. And while Dies Natalis Solis Invicti is also believed to have been celebrated on Dec 25, the only hard evidence of this day specifically being dedicated to Sol Invictus's birth is by Julian the Philosopher in 362 CE. It should also be noted that Julian the Philosopher passed laws to keep Christians out of teaching positions and positions of political power and sought to revive many pagan traditions. There is no other hard evidence to suggest that Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was celebrated on December 25 prior to 362 CE. The only other evidence that could suggest that Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was celebrated prior to 362 CE is the Chronography of 354. Since the Chronography of 354 also served as a Christian liturgy calendar, the day called Natalis Invicti is believed by most scholars to the first written record of Christmas being celebrated. Given this information it could be speculated that Julian the Philosopher set Dies Natalis Solis Invicti on Dec 25 to ease the conversion of Christians to his pagan revival. Due to the lack of information though, there is not enough evidence to support this claim as fact but there is enough for it to be realistically possible.  

[zz1000zz]

Quick side note. Epiphany, when Jesus was revealed to be the son of God (January 6th) covered all the events of Jesus's childhood, including his birth. It was a far more important holiday for a number of centuries.

In any event, I just don't know what Christmas is about really. The holiday went from being a mostly inconsequential holiday to arguably the most important holiday, albeit a secular one. Because of this, I have no idea how important should it be, or how should it be celebrated.

My instinct is to dismiss Christmas as a secularized, commercialized farce, but seeing as Epiphany doesn't get much focus anymore, I'm not really sure what to do.

rmcdra

Ah gotcha. Alright, then would this claim be better?

It seemed quite a bit wordier than it needed to be, but yeah.  

[rmcdra]

zz1000zz

Quick side note. Epiphany, when Jesus was revealed to be the son of God (January 6th) covered all the events of Jesus's childhood, including his birth. It was a far more important holiday for a number of centuries.

In any event, I just don't know what Christmas is about really. The holiday went from being a mostly inconsequential holiday to arguably the most important holiday, albeit a secular one. Because of this, I have no idea how important should it be, or how should it be celebrated.

My instinct is to dismiss Christmas as a secularized, commercialized farce, but seeing as Epiphany doesn't get much focus anymore, I'm not really sure what to do.

Armenian Orthodoxy does just what you propose.

Christmas is largely a tradition of Roman and Eastern Orthodoxy focusing on the nativity. Eastern Orthodoxy celebrates it on January 7th due to using Gregorian Calendars. Both of these traditions celebrate the Nativity 9 months from the Feast of Annunciation.