Does Christmas have pagan origins?

In my last post, I discussed some disagreements I have with Jozef Naumowicz's recent book on the origins of the Christmas holiday, The Origin Of The Feast Of The Nativity In The Patristic Perspective (Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH, 2024). I now want to quote some portions of his book that I'm more in agreement with, where he argues that paganism didn't have any significant influence on the origins of Christmas. I can't quote every relevant part of the book here, but I'll cite some significant parts of it.

Is there support for December 25 as Jesus' birthdate prior to the Council of Nicaea?

A book on the origins of the Christmas holiday came out earlier this year, Jozef Naumowicz's The Origin Of The Feast Of The Nativity In The Patristic Perspective (Berlin, Germany: Peter Lang GmbH, 2024). A section of the book describing the author refers to Naumowicz as "a member of the Committee of Historical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He is the author and editor of many publications in the field of ancient Christianity and patrology, as well as the editor of the Library of the Church Fathers series." He argues that the December 25 date for Jesus' birth and the celebration of his birth on that day aren't found in any source prior to the Council of Nicaea, but he also argues that the date and the holiday weren't influenced by paganism in any significant way. So, he assigns a late date to the holiday, but denies that it's pagan or an attempt to compete with paganism. I disagree with him on the first point, but agree with him on the second. I'll explain why I disagree with him in this post, then I'll cite some of his comments where I agree with him in a later post. The book is worth getting for his material on the pagan influence issue, even if you disagree with him on the dating of the December 25 date and the holiday.

His Enemies Cannot Shake Or Unsettle Him From His Throne

"But if God is the object of our love, we should share in his infinite happiness without contamination or the possibility of it being diminished. We should constantly rejoice in beholding the glory of God and receive comfort and pleasure from all the praises with which men and angels extol him. It should delight us beyond all expression to consider that the one who is beloved in our own souls is infinitely happy in himself and that all his enemies cannot shake or unsettle him from his throne. What a sure foundation does the soul have whose happiness is built on divine love, whose will is transformed into the will of God, and whose greatest desire is that his Maker should be pleased. Oh, the peace, the rest, the satisfaction that comes from such an attitude of mind!" (Henry Scougal, in Robin Taylor, ed., The Life Of God In The Soul Of Man [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2022], approximate Kindle location 466)

Where's James the son of Zebedee in later New Testament history?

Acts 12:2 reports his martyrdom. Notice the corroboration of that account elsewhere in the New Testament. Though James is so prominent in the gospels and was the first apostle taken by Herod in Acts 12, he's not referred to as still alive, much less prominent, in the portions of the New Testament covering later history. The James of Galatians 2:9 is most naturally taken as the James of chapter 1, the brother of Jesus, and the James of chapter 2 isn't mentioned next to John in 2:9, as the son of Zebedee probably would be. So, James the son of Zebedee is conspicuous by his absence in Galatians 2. He's also not mentioned elsewhere in the material that covers post-Acts-12 history, and none of the apostolic documents are attributed to him.

Turning Back To Make Progress

"Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better….We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man." (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity [New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2021], approximate Kindle locations 355, 533)

Early Non-Christian Ignorance Of A False Date For Jesus' Second Coming

The charge that Jesus and the earliest Christians set a false date for Jesus' second coming is a common objection to Christianity. I've said a lot about it over the years. One of the points I've made is that the early opponents of Christianity show no awareness of such a false prediction, which makes far more sense if there wasn't such a prediction. See here, for example. In that post, I brought up Celsus' treatise against Christianity. It's valuable for a variety of reasons. It's a second-century source, which is early. It was written by a pagan who consulted one or more Jewish sources, so it represents not only the views of multiple non-Christian sources, but also sources of significant diversity (pagan and Jewish). And a large percentage of the treatise has been preserved through Origen's interactions with it. (See my post linked above for documentation.) However, something I didn't do in that post was mention that the topic of false prophets comes up in the treatise. For example, Celsus objected to false prophets in Judaism and elsewhere, even ones he allegedly had met himself:

"And Celsus is not to be believed when he says that he has heard such men prophesy; for no prophets bearing any resemblance to the ancient prophets have appeared in the time of Celsus. If there had been any, those who heard and admired them would have followed the example of the ancients, and have recorded the prophecies in writing. And it seems quite clear that Celsus is speaking falsely, when he says that 'those prophets' whom he had heard, on being pressed by him, 'confessed their true motives, and acknowledged that the ambiguous words they used really meant nothing.' He ought to have given the names of those whom he says he had heard, if he had any to give, so that those who were competent to judge might decide whether his allegations were true or false." (in Origen, Against Celsus, 7:11)

So, it isn't just that Celsus and his Jewish source(s) don't refer to a false date set for Jesus' second coming. Rather, it goes even further than that. They're silent about such a false prediction even though the topic of false prophecy came up, and they objected to false prophecies in other contexts. And the alleged false date for Jesus' second coming isn't brought up in other relevant contexts either (e.g., discussions of eschatology).

What if Christian miracles don't come from God?

In a recent podcast, Stand To Reason addressed the following question:

"All supposed revelation of religions involves a subjective experience of receiving that revelation, so how do we know the biblical authors (Moses, the prophets, etc.) were interpreting their experiences correctly as opposed to Mohammed or Joseph Smith?"

I don't know how much the questioner was thinking of something like a scenario in which Christianity is a demonic deception. But that objection comes up occasionally and doesn't get addressed much, so I want to take this opportunity to address it again. Go here for a couple of comments I wrote on the topic a few years ago, then read this one that I wrote shortly afterward. The second thread just linked also has some comments from Hawk on the subject. For a response to the notion that Christian miracles are just manifestations of human paranormal capacities, see here.

I've given a couple of examples above, namely demons and human paranormal abilities. But the same principles are applicable to other non-Divine sources (e.g., an alien trying to deceive us). A Christian just has to argue that God is the best explanation, not that no other explanation is possible.

The Gravest Question Before The Church

"A.W. Tozer wisely wrote, 'What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us….For this reason, the gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at any given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like. We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God.' And that's why the most important thing about us is not our self-image, but our God-image. The gospel transforms us by transforming our vision of God….A Christian should never feel threatened by the world. Circling the wagons is not what people do when they have a great vision of God, an Isaianic vision of God, alive in their hearts….Father, we do ask that you would so release us from our emotional attachment to the things of this world, and you would so grip us and compel us with the triumph of Christ, that we no longer look like typical Americans." (Ray Ortlund, 6:03, 14:14, 38:36 in the audio of his October 27, 2002 sermon here)

Who Martin Luther Was Above All Else

"The first endeavor must be to understand the man. One will not move far in this direction unless one recognizes at the outset that Luther was above all else a man of religion. The great outward crises of his life which bedazzle the eyes of dramatic biographers were to Luther himself trivial in comparison with the inner upheavals of his questing after God." (Roland Bainton, Here I Stand [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1978], 6)

That's something to keep in mind as so many Christians in our day keep going after the false lead of the media, whatever is prominent in the news at the moment, and giving so much attention to gender issues, the family, politics, and such while doing so little in religious contexts.

Christians Raking Leaves

"The best things have to be dug for. If you rake, you get leaves. If you dig, you get diamonds. And if you've got a raking mind, you'll settle for leaves. If you've got a digging mind, you'll get diamonds." (John Piper, 14:13 in the audio here)

The Abuse Of Water-Related Language In The Bible To Support Baptismal Regeneration

I've written before about the many Biblical passages that refer to water, cleansing, and such in relevant contexts without having baptism in mind. But advocates of baptismal regeneration take certain passages out of context to make them seem supportive of baptismal regeneration because of the water-related terminology that's used. Even where the context goes in the opposite direction, they appeal to phrases that can be made to appear supportive of baptismal regeneration if taken in isolation (e.g., citing the reference to water in John 3:5, even though Jesus goes on to refer to the Old Testament background of his comments and keeps referring to people being justified apart from baptism elsewhere in the gospels; citing the reference to washing in Titus 3:5, even though it's accompanied by an exclusion of works). I want to expand on my previous post, linked above, with a discussion of some other relevant passages.

"Simply Literal" Scripture Interpretation Long Before The Reformation

Critics of Protestantism often make much of the large amount of allegorizing in the church fathers' interpretations of scripture. But there was a lot of diversity in how scripture was interpreted, including interpretive approaches of a more literal nature, long before the Reformation. Though Jerome allegorized a lot, he acknowledged that other people in his day didn't:

"In the Scriptures, the words are not simply literal, as some think." (in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Isaiah [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2015], p. 938, Letter 18A:12)

You often come across comments like those in pre-Reformation sources. Whether they name who they have in mind or not, they refer to a diversity of interpretive methods and interpretations. Even among those who allegorized a lot, there was a lot of variation in terms of how they did so, the extent to which they did it, etc. There's diversity among those who interpret scripture more literally as well.

How Jesus Identified Himself By His Actions

Here's something I recently posted on the subject in a YouTube thread:

Claims About What "All Of The Apostolic Churches" And "The Protestant Reformers" Believed

When it's shown that there are significant historical problems with something like the perpetual virginity of Mary, her assumption, or praying to saints (e.g., the early absence of the belief, early sources contradicting it, sources being agnostic about it as late as the medieval era), a common response is to say that all apostolic churches accept the belief in question. Or we'll be told that some or all of the foremost leaders of the Reformation accepted it, that early Protestants in general did, or something else along those lines. We'll be told about how all of the apostolic churches practice prayer to the saints, how high of a Mariology the leaders of the Reformation had, and so on.

Several things need to be kept in mind when that sort of response comes up: