Comments on: Christopher Hitchens on the True Story of Christmas

By: John

John — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:15:26 +0000

Regarding the linked video, it should be clear there are no radical secrets here. Igniter Media is not a fundie production company. They are pretty mainstream.

The ignorance of many Christians regarding which elements of Christmas are scriptural and which are cultural should not be shocking. Just watch Jay Leno quiz college students on American gov’t or current events. The levels of ignorance in our pop-culture obsessed society are astronomical. So don’t blame the church for something that’s true of society or Western civ as a whole. Western popular culture (Christian or not) has no appetite for history.

And to the “duhsciple” above, Crossan and Borg *are* atheists. Well, Crossan is. For Borg, the question is debatable. There are many theologians (virtually all of Crossan’s cohorts in the “Jesus Seminar”) who deny the existence of anything supernatural. They may be theologians, they may call themselves “Christians,” but by any technical definition of atheism, they are atheists. They can be called Christian only if you define “Christian” in a way that allows one to be “Christian” and simulaneously deny the ontological existence of any deity. It’s more accurate to say they are anthropologists rather than theologians for the object of their study (god) is an empty set (in their minds).

So their deconstruction of Christmas isn’t more radical than any atheist because theirs *is* an atheist deconstruction.

Such are the problems we have when people feel free to redefine words in a way that has no relationship to the original meaning.

By: duhsciple

duhsciple — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 01:13:45 +0000

Please don’t be as literal as the fundamentalists.

Read the “First Christmas” by Crossan and Borg

It is even more radical than any atheist deconstruction of Christmas truth.

By: Doreen

Doreen — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:49:30 +0000

Went to Catholic school for eight years. I can’t remember if I learned this from school or my mom, but I do remember being told that a lot of things about Christmas were actually pagan so as to help convert the Celts and Norse. It’s likely I heard it from both.

So to answer your answer “Is there any church in America that actually teaches the truth about this history?”

St. Andrews in Drexel Hill, Pa… at least 10 years ago, anyways.

By: Eamon Knight

Eamon Knight — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:38:29 +0000

I thought it was pretty much common knowledge — even in the fundamentalist circles I frequented as a teenager — that Jesus would not have been born in late December (carols like “In The Bleak Midwinter” notwithstanding), and that the date on which to celebrate the event was chosen for other reasons. Maybe I just hung with a smarter crowd of fundies, I dunno.

So I have to agree with Nathan: “debunking” the date is pretty thin gruel, as critiques of religion go. That the whole frackin’ story, as told, is a clumsy harmonization of contradictory accounts, with no supporting evidence, and with historical problems surrounding the chronology (see Luke 2:1), is a far stronger argument that it’s entirely legendary.

By: Victor

Victor — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:30:07 +0000

I did actually run across the Christian justification for using December 25th as the date for Jesus’s birth, though it’s a bit strained. An early Christian philosopher (2nd or 3rd century, I believe) named Sextus figured that (get this) since Christ died on the Vernal Equinox, then he must have been conceived on the Vernal Equinox as well. Therefore he would have been born on the Winter Solstice (which isn’t quite right anyway, it would have been closer to Dec 6th).

Looks to me like he have the 25th in mind already before he started that little mental exorcise.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 02:55:54 +0000

“Showing that December 25 was chosen for political reasons rather than historic ones helps make that case.”

Does it really? The date seems fairly arbitrary to me – except for the whole taking over pagan rituals thing. Christians no doubt feel the need to commemorate the incarnation. It’s a pretty core part of Christian belief – without God made flesh there is no Christianity.

Christmas in its cultural form is one of those things that only the nominal Christians seem to get really excited about. It’s the last bastion of their nominal faith.

The Church of Scotland had Christmas celebrations banned in England at one point as part of a treaty.

By: ckitching

ckitching — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:44:32 +0000

I don’t know that the taking over of a pagan festival is the deal breaker you atheists suggest it is.

We aren’t trying to destroy the celebration of Christmas (not all of us, anyway). Simply getting rid of this nonsense about a “War on Christmas” would be enough. Showing that December 25 was chosen for political reasons rather than historic ones helps make that case.

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:42:59 +0000

I was taught from a young age that the Church placed Christmas (and other holidays) to replace the (then current) pagan traditions. I don’t see what historical accuracy of a relatively arbitrary memorial date matters but anything goes when criticizing religion, I guess.

The same applies for the adoption of current scholastic terms when one thinks of it.

By: Sue D. Nymme

Sue D. Nymme — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:56:11 +0000

My late grandfather (a truly wonderful person, an intellectual and exceptional Christian) told me that the word that is translated as “inn” is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean “guest room”.
So “there was no room at the inn”, invariably depicted in school plays as involving a grumpy and overworked innkeeper, actually meant “there was no room in the guest room”. Presumably Joseph and Mary were visiting relatives while they were in a city away from home.

Now doesn’t that make more sense than the canonical legend?

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 21:47:51 +0000

I don’t know if this is one of those uniquely American things – but I’ve been brought up in the church and always known that Jesus was probably born in October or November.

I don’t know that the taking over of a pagan festival is the deal breaker you atheists suggest it is.