Your shopping cart is empty!
In spite of the fact that the date of Christ's introduction to the world is not given to us in Scripture, there is recorded confirmation that December 25 was at that point of some hugeness to Christians preceding A.D. 354. One case can be found in the works of Hyppolytus of Rome, who clarifies in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord's introduction to the world was accepted to have happened on that day:
For the principal appearance of our Lord in the substance, when he was conceived in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, however from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He endured in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.
The reference to Adam can be comprehended in light of another of Hyppolytus' works, the Chronicon, where he clarifies that Jesus was conceived nine months after the commemoration of Creation. As indicated by his estimations, the world was made on the vernal equinox, March 25, which would mean Jesus was conceived nine months after the fact, on December 25.
Nineteenth-century ceremonial researcher Louis Duchesne clarifies that "towards the end of the third century the custom of praising the birthday of Christ had spread all through the entire Church, however that it was not watched wherever around the same time" (Christian Worship, Its Origin and Evolution: an investigation of the Latin ritual up to the season of Charlemagne, p. 260).
In the West, the introduction of Christ was commended on December 25, and in the East on January 6.
Duchesne keeps in touch with "one is slanted to trust that the Roman Church settled on decision of the 25th of December to go into competition with Mithraism. This reason, be that as it may, leaves unexplained the decision of the sixth of January" (in the same place., p. 261). His answer, in this way, was the date of Christ's introduction to the world was chosen by utilizing as a beginning stage that day on which he was accepted to have kicked the bucket. This would clarify the errors between the festivals in the East and West.
Given the considerable abhorrence with respect to a few Christians to anything agnostic, the consistent conclusion here is that one festival has nothing to do with the other. In his book, Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict XVI clarifies:
The claim used to be made that December 25 created contrary to the Mithras myth, or as a Christian reaction to the clique of the unconquered sun advanced by Roman rulers in the third century in their endeavors to build up another supreme religion. Nonetheless, these old speculations can never again be managed. The conclusive element was the association of creation and Cross, of creation and Christ's origination (p. 105-107).
While these clarifications of how December 25 came to be the date of Christmas are all conceivable, we know one thing without a doubt: The confirmation that this day held an extraordinary hugeness to Christians originates before the evidence of a gathered festival of Sol Invictus or other agnostic gods on that day.
That the Christians picked a date so near the winter solstice is likewise not confirmation this was done to copy agnostic celebrations. The different agnostic religions all had celebrations spreading over the date-book. Whatever month the early Christians may have generally picked would at present place Christmas close to some agnostic festival, and oppositional scholars would in any case be making similar cases.
The solstice was vital to everybody for farming reasons similarly water is imperative to the survival of individuals, thus we see customs including water appearing in different religions. That doesn't demonstrate that one obtained the thought or subject from another.