Why December 25th?

[Josh]

Interesting article challenges the commonly held view: How Dec. 25 became Christmas

[Josh]

Basically makes the argument that Christians didn't date Christmas on Dec. 25th as some kind of Constantinian way of syncretizing pagan holidays with Christianity (though in general I think that was a genius move by the later Catholic church when it didn't compromise doctrine).  Christians were observing Dec. 25th well before Constantine during the days of persecution when Christians were least likely to want to syncretize.  They put forward an interesting theory with some degree of underpinning evidence that the date was arrived at by the following logic: Jesus would have entered the world (been conceived) on the same day he died*.  Most Christians agreed that was March 25th, so he would have been born on Dec. 25th. 

*read the article for the logic behind this, but keep in mind that the ancient world was much more numerologically focused than we are.

[LadyAjax]

Why is it a given that "Jesus would have entered the world (been conceived) on the same day he died"?

[Josh]

Did you see my footnote?

[asaph]

"There is another way to account for the origins of Christmas on December 25: Strange as it may seem, the key to dating Jesus’ birth may lie in the dating of Jesus’ death at Passover. This view was first suggested to the modern world by French scholar Louis Duchesne in the early 20th century and fully developed by American Thomas Talley in more recent years.8 But they were certainly not the first to note a connection between the traditional date of Jesus’ death and his birth."

Well, are they the first or not?

How did I know, before I looked it up, that Duchesne was a Roman Catholic priest?

I would challenge McGowan's statements about the non-entrance of paganism into professed Christianity in the seond and third centuries, as well as the entire aspect of the supposed conversion of Constantine to the true faith, if he was "converted" at all. 

It could be argued, regardless of 'why December 25th' (and I noticed the article made no mention of pagan deities such as the Babylonian Tammuz, supposed miraculous son of Nimrod through Semiramis, and others claimed to be born December 25th) that the silence of the Bible on the date of Christ's birth has a reason from God: He didn't want anyone getting into what has taken place over the centuries.

One thing to be learned by reading "the fathers" is that none of them agreed with each other on much of anything save the barest of biblical teachings. About as much trust can be placed in them as the cookie monster for ascertaining theology separated from contemporary philosophies of their day. Especially those influenced by Alexandria, the birthplace of wide-spread Christian apostasy, along with Rome, which began with such high regards from Paul. All of it goes to show trying to prop up Dec. 25th, for any reason, is just human foolishness packaged as religious devotion.

Just reading the news the day after Thanksgiving would show how the current season of December 25th is absolutely no different than the Roman feast of Saturnalia. You cannot "put Christ back into Christmas" if He was never there in a 'mass for Christ' to begin with.

A very interesting quote from the Anglican John Henry Newman, who ended up becoming a Catholic cardinal of great influence in the 19th century:

"Confiding then in the power of Christianity to resist the infection of evil, and to transmute the very instruments and appendages of demon-worship to an evangelical use, and feeling also that these usages had originally come from primitive revelations and from the instinct of nature, though they had been corrupted; and that they must invent what they needed, if they did not use what they found; and that they were moreover possessed of the very archetypes, of which paganism attempted the shadows; the rulers of the Church from early times were prepared, should the occasion arise, to adopt, or imitate, or sanction the existing rites and customs of the populace, as well as the philosophy of the educated class." Deveopment of Christian Doctrine, pp 371,372.

"We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." ibid. pp 373,374